75 years o' celibacy?

[west3man]

I wasn't sure what else to call this thread.

Some folks believe in waiting til marriage before having sex. Some folks who've already had sex wish they HAD waited. Some of them want those they raise or lead (in a religious capacity, let's say) to wait.

The thing is, there's no guarantee a person will EVER get married. Or, if a marriage ends, early in life, there's no guarantee "they" will ever get married, AGAIN.

What I want to know, from anyone who feels they have something substantive to contribute to the topic, is:

Would you go without or recommend that others go without sex FOREVER?

-------------------------------

For me, I'd rather my (future-)kids wait until they're adults to have sex, but waiting until they're married? Enh. If a person never wants to get married, they may never have sex and I'm not telling my kids to do what I know DAMNED WELL I wouldn't do.

[Grant]

Would you go without or recommend that others go without sex FOREVER?[/COLOR]

No I wouldn't suggest it unless you are like really religous.

I mean I would at least see a hooker or something.

[HomerJay]

Well, it's like they say:
"Sex is great if it's with someone you love, but it's even better if it's with someone you don't."

Not sure I believe that 100%, but they're on to something.

[Indy24LA]

Would you go without or recommend that others go without sex FOREVER?

I would never go without sex (voluntarily) for a long time, married or not. I like sex and damn it, I'm just starting to get good at it. And I wouldn't recommond going without forever or even waiting to get married, unless that's your choice, then of course I'd respect that. But personally if I added up all the bad experiences (ok, trying to think of some bad experiences now) in my life that pertained to sex and compared them with the good, well the good wins, no contest.

[Spider69]

You only live foor 75-90 years if you lucky! Then You have all ITERNITY!!To do what ever you want.You only live once,so enjoy it now while you can(before ITERNITY!!comes)

[Winslow]

I wouldn't recommend anyone that wants sex, go without sex.

If you're a religous person with convictions, then get married.

I personally don't believe it's an "either - or" choice.

[west3man]

I wouldn't recommend anyone that wants sex, go without sex.

If you're a religous person with convictions, then get married.

I personally don't believe it's an "either - or" choice.
The point is, not everyone finds someone they want to marry... and who wants to marry them, at the same time. So, if that NEVER happens, are you suggesting they find someone, marry the person, not because he's Mr. Right, but because he's Mr. RightNow... then get to humpin'?

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

Personally, I don't recommend celibacy to anyone. I don't think Catholic priests should have to remain celebate (after all, it's not required by the Bible and the Catholic church had many married priests in the past and, even to this day, there are some Catholic priests who are married. I remember one case in particular of a Lutheran minister who converted to Catholicism who is both married and a priest). Sex is part of life, after all, so why deny something that is encoded in the genes? On a side note, I've always found it strange that priests offer marital advice. It's kind of like going to the dentist to get your car fixed.

As for me, sure I could remain celibate.


If I were freeze-dried.

[Winslow]

The point is, not everyone finds someone they want to marry... and who wants to marry them, at the same time. So, if that NEVER happens, are you suggesting they find someone, marry the person, not because he's Mr. Right, but because he's Mr. RightNow... then get to humpin'?

Well no . . .

We don't share the same worldview on this. I honestly think if your religous and want sex, God will provide sex, in a way that lines up with the rules He's laid down about sex.

So why don't some people find someone? I dunno.

If you want to get married, I really think you can take proactive steps to "be the kind of person" and "meet the kind of person" that can make a relationship work.

I don't think there are any "celibate victims" in other words.

And I have no idea how to answer the, "what if you have a homosexual orientation and believe homosexuality is a sin?" I have no clue and no wisdom to shed on that one, other than that has to be one of the toughest sexual tensions I can imagine.

[Rabid Trekkie]

I wasn't sure what else to call this thread.

Some folks believe in waiting til marriage before having sex. Some folks who've already had sex wish they HAD waited. Some of them want those they raise or lead (in a religious capacity, let's say) to wait.

The thing is, there's no guarantee a person will EVER get married. Or, if a marriage ends, early in life, there's no guarantee "they" will ever get married, AGAIN.

What I want to know, from anyone who feels they have something substantive to contribute to the topic, is:

Would you go without or recommend that others go without sex FOREVER?

-------------------------------

For me, I'd rather my (future-)kids wait until they're adults to have sex, but waiting until they're married? Enh. If a person never wants to get married, they may never have sex and I'm not telling my kids to do what I know DAMNED WELL I wouldn't do.


I suggest that everyone stop having sex. Let this sickness called "Life" stop now.

I don't see myself finding that special someone anytime soon (I'm too anti-social to even look and I'm not good around people) and mine is one of the religions that says "No sex until your married you perv." so I guess that means for the forseeable future I don't get none.

I don't know why other religions have that rule but in mine the reason is that we believe that in God's eyes the first person you have sex with becomes your husband/wife. Sort of how like Isaac in the Bible when he first met Rebecca, there was no ceremony she was introduced to Daddy and then went to make a man out of his son and from that moment they were man and wife. At least that's my understanding of it.

[west3man]

If you want to get married, I really think you can take proactive steps to "be the kind of person" and "meet the kind of person" that can make a relationship work. There are a LOT of lonely folks out there right now who stopped when you said that and yelled, "I'm trying. I'M TRYING!"

[west3man]

I suggest that everyone stop having sex. Let this sickness called "Life" stop now.

I don't see myself finding that special someone anytime soon (I'm too anti-social to even look and I'm not good around people) and mine is one of the religions that says "No sex until your married you perv." so I guess that means for the forseeable future I don't get none.

I don't know why other religions have that rule but in mine the reason is that we believe that in God's eyes the first person you have sex with becomes your husband/wife. Sort of how like Isaac in the Bible when he first met Rebecca, there was no ceremony she was introduced to Daddy and then went to make a man out of his son and from that moment they were man and wife. At least that's my understanding of it.A friend of mine mentioned that some years back. I always thought it was an interesting interpretation... and one that opens up a world of possibilities... and loopholes.

[west3man]

Let me just say, that while I may or may not agree with the religious or moral philosophies that might guide a person to temporary or a lifetime of celibacy, I am NOT trying to convince anyone to to one way or the other. I'm just curious about the lines people draw between what they will or won't do... Then I'm more curious to see if those lines move once a situation is viewed from a different angle.

So, anyway, that's where I'm coming from.

[Winslow]

There are a LOT of lonely folks out there right now who stopped when you said that and yelled, "I'm trying. I'M TRYING!"

I feel for them, I really do. I was once one of them.

But sometimes the first step to doing the right thing is hearing the truth and stop feeling sorry for yourself.

[Jared_Humpherys]

Sexuality is a psychological and physiological necessity. Self-imposed sexual restraints, such as a lifetime of outright abstinence, is unhealthy in the extreme. I'm all for self-denial of a bad habit, but sex itself is hardly evil, as some make it out to be. Sex is like technology in that way: in itself it is neutral, but can be used for good or bad(and there's a big different between healthy and unhealthy sex, as well). Sexuality is by no means something anyone should charge headlong into, damn the consequences, but neither is it something to flee from.

*waits eagerly to see Kramer's response to this thread*

[JeffreyWKramer]

Would you go without or recommend that others go without sex FOREVER?

Would I recommend it? No. If someone wanted to do that, for religious purposes or whatever, that's fine for them to make that choice, but if they asked me, I'd say it's probably a bad choice to make, both a) because they'd be missing one of the truly wonderful things in life, and b) there are psychological and physiological benefits to sex, and the person would thus be depriving him/herself of said benefits.

[Spike-X]

Would you go without or recommend that others go without sex FOREVER?



Hell no!!



There are a LOT of lonely folks out there right now who stopped when you said that and yelled, "I'm trying. I'M TRYING!"

And one who's yelling, "Why should i have to try, dammit? It's too much work!"

[Fenris]

I wasn't sure what else to call this thread.

Hey, it was an attention-getting and reasonably representative title. What more can be asked of it?


Some folks believe in waiting til marriage before having sex. Some folks who've already had sex wish they HAD waited. Some of them want those they raise or lead (in a religious capacity, let's say) to wait.

The thing is, there's no guarantee a person will EVER get married. Or, if a marriage ends, early in life, there's no guarantee "they" will ever get married, AGAIN.

No guarantee? Well, I guess not; although that seems like a really passive way of putting it. As if marriage were something that happened to you, out of your control; instead of something that you went out and did by your own choices.

(Hm, I see that you've elaborated on this further down. Never mind!)


What I want to know, from anyone who feels they have something substantive to contribute to the topic, is:

Would you go without or recommend that others go without sex FOREVER?

Speaking as the senior member of the CBR Virgin Squad: yes, and very occaisionally yes.

There aren't many reasons to live a life of celibacy, but they do exist. (Mine, for what it's worth, is that I'm a gay Christian.)
If I were advising someone on lifelong celibacy, I would say three things:

1) Don't frame it in terms of "forever": that is dramatic and misleading. You don't really know what your life will be like next year, so let that go. Decide if you're going to be celibate this month, and go with that. Forever will take care of itself.

2) You probably won't be able to do it unless God calls you to it; and that is a fairly rare calling. But if you have that calling, do your best to honor it.

3) Life without sex is not as tragic as it looks. (At least, many of my sexually-active friends seem to consider it tragic: they have some muted expectation that I'll go around with my hand to my forehead, murmering, "Oh, the lost sex, the lost sex!" :) )

Once you're committed to celibacy, the whole thing just doesn't come up very often. No, I don't think I'll ever have sex. I don't think I'll ever be a billionaire rock star, either. And neither case bothers me, because I've adjusted my expectations to deal with it.



-------------------------------

For me, I'd rather my (future-)kids wait until they're adults to have sex, but waiting until they're married? Enh. If a person never wants to get married, they may never have sex and I'm not telling my kids to do what I know DAMNED WELL I wouldn't do.

I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean that it would probably be better for them to wait until marriage, but it would be hypocritical for you to tell them that, since you didn't (and wouldn't) wait yourself? Or do you mean something else?

[west3man]

Hey, it was an attention-getting and reasonably representative title. What more can be asked of it?




No guarantee? Well, I guess not; although that seems like a really passive way of putting it. As if marriage were something that happened to you, out of your control; instead of something that you went out and did by your own choices.

(Hm, I see that you've elaborated on this further down. Never mind!)




Speaking as the senior member of the CBR Virgin Squad: yes, and very occaisionally yes. Very cool. I haven't finished your post and I'm smililng, already. Thanks for that.

I'm going to enjoy this for a bit before finishing. I'm very much looking forward to reading your thoughts on the subject. Almost every response, so far, has offered valuable insight on the subject, but not every one has been from this perspective.

Here's an opportunity to learn something new.

[Paradox]

It would never be something I'd RECOMMEND, but, hey, if they want to, it's their life...

[Asmith]

To quote a wise man (or should that be 'wise arse'?):
"Virginity is a memory, not a lifestyle choice."

However for those (crazy) people that decided to follow a life of celibacy, it should be noted that celibacy just means you're not bumping and grinding the uglies with a partner. There are many other forms of sexual release left open to the celibate devotee.

It's a bit like being a vegetarian. A vegetarian can eat a piece of tofu shaped and coloured like bacon. Celibate people can enjoy inflatable dolls, for instance, without breaking their commitment.

I've never really understood the celibate lifestyle. But I've only ever met one person who said they were celibate by choice, however I didn't believe them as they were exceedingly ugly. Either way I think everyone was just happy that he wasn't breeding.

Is there any reason to be celibate by choice other than a religious one?
What possible benefits could there be to such a decision?

[Rabid Trekkie]

To quote a wise man (or should that be 'wise arse'?):
"Virginity is a memory, not a lifestyle choice."

However for those (crazy) people that decided to follow a life of celibacy, it should be noted that celibacy just means you're not bumping and grinding the uglies with a partner. There are many other forms of sexual release left open to the celibate devotee.

It's a bit like being a vegetarian. A vegetarian can eat a piece of tofu shaped and coloured like bacon. Celibate people can enjoy inflatable dolls, for instance, without breaking their commitment.

I've never really understood the celibate lifestyle. But I've only ever met one person who said they were celibate by choice, however I didn't believe them as they were exceedingly ugly. Either way I think everyone was just happy that he wasn't breeding.

Is there any reason to be celibate by choice other than a religious one?
What possible benefits could there be to such a decision?

Wow so everyone who decides to stay celibate is either crazy or ugly. I'm glad your here to tell us these things we wouldn't know about ourselves.

[roguespirit]

I am sexually active but when I was a non sexually active (relatively) christian I founf the attitude of sexually active non christians to be really condescending.

[Asmith]

Wow so everyone who decides to stay celibate is either crazy or ugly. I'm glad your here to tell us these things we wouldn't know about ourselves.

No. Of course, not. Sure, I think being celibate is kinda crazy, but note I seperated that remark from the rest of the text via the use of brackets. And I remarked that the one and only fellow I've met in person who claimed to be celibate by choice was ugly. Not all celibate people, one person.

So I wasn't actually calling you or any other celibate people I haven't met ugly and don't see why you should of identified yourself with those remarks.

However, I did then ask the questions, why would anyone want to be celibate other than for religious reasons? And what benefits do people who maintain a celibate lifestyle outside of following a religious doctrine is there for these people?

Neither you seemed to want to express an opinion on.

You chose to find a way to be offended instead, which is pretty fake as you know being celibate is not the norm for the vast majority of everybody. There's no way you could of gone rootless for a year without becoming aware that it wasn't something very many people did or understood. So I think it's a little uncalled for you getting so tense just because somebody thinks it's a damn odd thing to do.

If what you're doing is the right thing for you, go for it! (or not go for it, as the case may be). But you know it's fully unrealistic to expect everybody to either understand celibacy or think such an abnormal practice is a positive thing. That's crazy thinking, dude.

[Rabid Trekkie]

No. Of course, not. Sure, I think being celibate is kinda crazy, but note I seperated that remark from the rest of the text via the use of brackets. And I remarked that the one and only fellow I've met in person who claimed to be celibate by choice was ugly. Not all celibate people, one person.

So I wasn't actually calling you or any other celibate people I haven't met ugly and don't see why you should of identified yourself with those remarks.

However, I did then ask the questions, why would anyone want to be celibate other than for religious reasons? And what benefits do people who maintain a celibate lifestyle outside of following a religious doctrine is there for these people?

Neither you seemed to want to express an opinion on.

You chose to find a way to be offended instead, which is pretty fake as you know being celibate is not the norm for the vast majority of everybody. There's no way you could of gone rootless for a year without becoming aware that it wasn't something very many people did or understood. So I think it's a little uncalled for you getting so tense just because somebody thinks it's a damn odd thing to do.

If what you're doing is the right thing for you, go for it! (or not go for it, as the case may be). But you know it's fully unrealistic to expect everybody to either understand celibacy or think such an abnormal practice is a positive thing. That's crazy thinking, dude.

No, being celibate is not the norm. Then again neither is being gothic, a geek, gay, and a whole host of other things. I don't consider them mentally unbalanced in any way, just different. If I did call them crazy though practically half the board would be down my throat. And yeah you put crazy in brackets, polite way of insulting a person sort of like if I went on and told a person what they could go do with themselves and then added a "j/k" after.

As for reasons other than religion to stay away from sex? A person doesn't feel comfortable around people even close friends so you just shut yourself from everyone else and don't worry about it any more.

[Asmith]

No, being celibate is not the norm. Then again neither is being gothic, a geek, gay, and a whole host of other things. I don't consider them mentally unbalanced in any way, just different.

Well I did equate celibates with vegetarians in my original post, so I think we're both in agreement there. Maybe you're mistaking (or I didn't make it clear) my use of the word 'crazy'. I meant it as in 'whacky', 'wierd', 'freaky' not in the literal 'insane as a naked clown juggling butchers knives on a tricycle' type way.

If I did call them crazy though practically half the board would be down my throat. And yeah you put crazy in brackets, polite way of insulting a person sort of like if I went on and told a person what they could go do with themselves and then added a "j/k" after.

Well, I just don't agree with you there at all. Your example is nothing like my post. Sounds all a bit overly sensitive to the whole topic, as I wasn't directly singling anyone out for my remark of 'crazy'.

But yeah, as a guy who just had a very lovely bedroom session with his girlfriend all afternoon, I think celibacy is crazy/wierd. Everyone should give themselves the chance to feel as good as I do right now even hours later. But I don't understand the whole celibacy idea. It seems counter positive healthy human nature to me. That's why I asked what it was I was missing out on by not 'missing out' - if you know what I mean.

As for reasons other than religion to stay away from sex? A person doesn't feel comfortable around people even close friends so you just shut yourself from everyone else and don't worry about it any more.

That's just doesn't sound healthy. And certainly doesn't sound like it has any positive benefits what so ever. Sounds more like some sort of mental sickness.

Is there nothing else going for celibacy other than what you've described? If this is the way it really is why should celibacy ever be seen as a good or positive thing?

[Night]

Is there any reason to be celibate by choice other than a religious one?
What possible benefits could there be to such a decision?
1. No unwanted pregnancies
2. No child support
3. No false positive paternity tests
4. No abortion questions
5. No funky diseases on your do-da
6. No calls from someone who has funky diseases on their do-da asking to have your checked
7. No emergency trips for hygiene-supplies/pregnancy tests
8. No last minute rushes out to get birth control devices
9. No slippage/seepage in birth control devices
10. Less likely to be a victim of a Bobbit attack
11. Less likely to have an attack named after you
12. More sleep
13. More focus
14. Less wear on bed springs
15. Being able to leave the toilet seat in whatever position you want
16. You don't lose your best shirt to someone who never talks to you again
17. Not waking up next to Chewbacca
18. Not being involved with some obsessive axe-murderer
19. No gender embarrassments
20. Less likely to get arrested for prostitution mistakes
21. Harder for someone to accuse you of rape
22. Less problems with the whole underage thing
23. Less likely to get chased/shot at by jealous boyfriend/husband
24. Less likely to lose good friends over stupid partner reorganizations
25. No he-said/she-said
26. Less junior high level dramas
27. No worries about being caught by parents/siblings
28. Don't have to worry if you're related
29. No worries about whether the person is related to your boss/supervisor
30. Not worrying on who's panties/earring this is
31. Less chance of your tires getting slashed or your car getting keyed
32. You don't lose your favorite shirt to someone who's never going to talk to you again
33. Your stuff less likely to be burned or tossed out on the lawn
34. Space in your bathroom for your stuff
35. You don't have to get a new favorite song because of a breakup
36. No avoiding a restaurant/club because of an ex
37. No fake orgasms
38. No comparisons on your performance versus all the other guys she slept with
39. Less likely that your do-da's end up on the Internet
40. Less likely to end up on Jerry Springer taking about how much of a horse's rear end you are
41. If you get famous you have less trash being rekindled
42. Less political scandals
43. Less time in court
44. Going out with someone without the pressure of trying to coax her to sleep with you
45. Ordering what you want to eat at a restaurant
46. Seeing the movies you want to see
47. Going out casual with your friends not worried about looking good for potential mates
48. Cash not spent on courting can be used in other areas of your life
49. Appreciating a woman beyond bust/butt size
50. Less time talking to uninteresting people
51. Less time discussing subjects you know nothing about
52. Less questions on whether something makes your partner look fat
53. Being able to answer a question like that honestly
54. Less odds of being part of someone else's emotional scars
55. Not having to try to make peace with the spawn from hell she calls a pet

There probably some other possible reasons, but that's what I could come up with off the top of my head

[Ayo]

1. No unwanted pregnancies
2. No child support
3. No false positive paternity tests
4. No abortion questions
5. No funky diseases on your do-da
6. No calls from someone who has funky diseases on their do-da asking to have your checked
7. No emergency trips for hygiene-supplies/pregnancy tests
8. No last minute rushes out to get birth control devices
9. No slippage/seepage in birth control devices
10. Less likely to be a victim of a Bobbit attack
11. Less likely to have an attack named after you
12. More sleep
13. More focus
14. Less wear on bed springs
15. Being able to leave the toilet seat in whatever position you want
16. You don't lose your best shirt to someone who never talks to you again
17. Not waking up next to Chewbacca
18. Not being involved with some obsessive axe-murderer
19. No gender embarrassments
20. Less likely to get arrested for prostitution mistakes
21. Harder for someone to accuse you of rape
22. Less problems with the whole underage thing
23. Less likely to get chased/shot at by jealous boyfriend/husband
24. Less likely to lose good friends over stupid partner reorganizations
25. No he-said/she-said
26. Less junior high level dramas
27. No worries about being caught by parents/siblings
28. Don't have to worry if you're related
29. No worries about whether the person is related to your boss/supervisor
30. Not worrying on who's panties/earring this is
31. Less chance of your tires getting slashed or your car getting keyed
32. You don't lose your favorite shirt to someone who's never going to talk to you again
33. Your stuff less likely to be burned or tossed out on the lawn
34. Space in your bathroom for your stuff
35. You don't have to get a new favorite song because of a breakup
36. No avoiding a restaurant/club because of an ex
37. No fake orgasms
38. No comparisons on your performance versus all the other guys she slept with
39. Less likely that your do-da's end up on the Internet
40. Less likely to end up on Jerry Springer taking about how much of a horse's rear end you are
41. If you get famous you have less trash being rekindled
42. Less political scandals
43. Less time in court
44. Going out with someone without the pressure of trying to coax her to sleep with you
45. Ordering what you want to eat at a restaurant
46. Seeing the movies you want to see
47. Going out casual with your friends not worried about looking good for potential mates
48. Cash not spent on courting can be used in other areas of your life
49. Appreciating a woman beyond bust/butt size
50. Less time talking to uninteresting people
51. Less time discussing subjects you know nothing about
52. Less questions on whether something makes your partner look fat
53. Being able to answer a question like that honestly
54. Less odds of being part of someone else's emotional scars
55. Not having to try to make peace with the spawn from hell she calls a pet

There probably some other possible reasons, but that's what I could come up with off the top of my head


On the other hand, you don't get to have sex.

[Solaris]

I wasn't sure what else to call this thread.

Some folks believe in waiting til marriage before having sex. Some folks who've already had sex wish they HAD waited. Some of them want those they raise or lead (in a religious capacity, let's say) to wait.

The thing is, there's no guarantee a person will EVER get married. Or, if a marriage ends, early in life, there's no guarantee "they" will ever get married, AGAIN.

What I want to know, from anyone who feels they have something substantive to contribute to the topic, is:

Would you go without or recommend that others go without sex FOREVER?

-------------------------------

For me, I'd rather my (future-)kids wait until they're adults to have sex, but waiting until they're married? Enh. If a person never wants to get married, they may never have sex and I'm not telling my kids to do what I know DAMNED WELL I wouldn't do.



I think it's a personal choice, and abstinence is as acceptible as any other choice about sex. Jeffrey pointed out that there's some benefits (including physiological) with having sex... but an individual might feel that other benefits outweigh that, in their own instance. Some do so for religious reasons. Some do so in an attempt to channel the sex drive/energy into another activity. Some have other reasons. I figure, if the person is happy with their decision, why not? So long as they don't try to impose it on the rest of us, that is. Live and let live. :)

[Fenris]

Very cool. I haven't finished your post and I'm smililng, already. Thanks for that.

I'm going to enjoy this for a bit before finishing. I'm very much looking forward to reading your thoughts on the subject. Almost every response, so far, has offered valuable insight on the subject, but not every one has been from this perspective.

Here's an opportunity to learn something new.

Why, thank you, West!

And yes, it's been a very educational thread.

[west3man]

I think it's a personal choice, and abstinence is as acceptible as any other choice about sex. Jeffrey pointed out that there's some benefits (including physiological) with having sex... but an individual might feel that other benefits outweigh that, in their own instance. Some do so for religious reasons. Some do so in an attempt to channel the sex drive/energy into another activity. Some have other reasons. I figure, if the person is happy with their decision, why not? So long as they don't try to impose it on the rest of us, that is. Live and let live. :)
I just wondered if certain folks who believe in abstaining til marriage are willing to do so forever...

and if those who tell their children or religious followers to abstain, have considered the real possibility that those people might go without forever.



I agree with live and let live. I'm just wonderin' about a different angle.

[Paradox]

Ayo keeps it simple:

On the other hand, you don't get to have sex.

Sounds like you win that round, to me. :D

[Solaris]

I just wondered if certain folks who believe in abstaining til marriage is willing to do so forever...

Kinda hard for me to answer *that* one! :eek: :D Hee.

and if those who tell their children or religious followers to abstain, have considered the real possibility that those people might go without forever.

I also wonder if they consider that... it's an interesting question.



I agree with live and let live. I'm just wonderin' about a different angle.

'K', I'd lost track of that w/rambling on today. After having it for over a week, I'm beginning to wonder if someone whipped up this utterly miserable "cold" we all have in some laboratory somewhere... this bugger is tenacious.

[Loren]

I just wondered if certain folks who believe in abstaining til marriage is willing to do so forever...

I intend on waiting until I marry to have sex. I hope that one day I'll find the right girl, but if I don't, I suppose that I may end up waiting forever.

The thought of not having sex doesn't bother me much. I look at Night's list and see a lot of things I sympathize with. I've abstained up 'til now, and there are many other things I regret having missed out on moreso than sex. In fact, the thought of dying without having had sex only really bothers me in one respect: it would mean I won't have had children of my own. I want to be a husband and father someday. That's much more important to me than the physical act of sex in and of itself.

Loren

[Tages]

Add me to the list of the CBR Celibate Squad. A lot of it is religious, but unlike most people in my situation, I wasn't raised to be particularly devout; my family doesn't devote much thought to the subject. I volunteered belief as an adult. So, unlike Fenris or Loren, I often do have the desire for sex for its own sake.

And I hate it. Hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it. Hate it. I feel regret for just about everything, not just things I've actually done. Simply the desire to do something I don't think fits my moral code sends me into a fit of guilt, shame, and emotional self-punishment and self-denial. I can't even think about women in a sexual context without feeling bad about it. It's not psychologically healthy, but it's how it's been since puberty, long before my Christianity, and try as I might, I can neither feel comfortable with my biological urges nor purge them from my mind.

Think about it. If I do this just at the thought of sex, how painful would it be to actually go through with it? I'd probably mope my way into a coma.

That's the second reason, along with religion. The third is a general lack of opportunity. So, I probably won't be getting any in the forseeable future. I'm not happy about it.

[Spike-X]

I'm not happy about it.

Then perhaps you could do something about it, like seeking professional help in some fashion?

[west3man]

Kinda hard for me to answer *that* one! :eek: :D Hee.



I also wonder if they consider that... it's an interesting question.





'K', I'd lost track of that w/rambling on today. After having it for over a week, I'm beginning to wonder if someone whipped up this utterly miserable "cold" we all have in some laboratory somewhere... this bugger is tenacious.:( Hope you feel better soon. It HAS been nasty recently.

*quickly fixes UGLY grammar issues in previous post*

Ahh. That's bettah. :o

[Rabid Trekkie]

I also wonder if they consider that... it's an interesting question.

Actually yeah, and I consider it something that isn't too hard to ask but that's just me. However we're (as in my religion) not exactly sure that it is forever. There's two schools of thought about how relationships are going to be in Heaven. One of them takes a line from Revelations (I think) that says that in heaven people will not be given in marriage to mean that no one in heaven will be married, that instead we're all going to be like a bunch of brothers and sisters and there will be no more sex.

The other thought (of which I'm apart of because it seems to make the most sense) is that marriage will just be different than it is now and more like how it was in the Garden of Eden, where two people just chose each other and stuck with each other for ever. I say this makes sense because if it was considered good when the Earth was perfect before then why wouldn't it be good after the Earth is perfected again. This is good for me and a lot of people. I think I have too many issues to get married in this life, however there should be a large singles scene in Heaven and there I won't have my problems.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

One of them takes a line from Revelations (I think) that says that in heaven people will not be given in marriage to mean that no one in heaven will be married, that instead we're all going to be like a bunch of brothers and sisters and there will be no more sex.


Heaven and Hell aren't all that far apart are they?

Cept everyone in hell got laid first.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

1. No unwanted pregnancies
2. No child support
3. No false positive paternity tests
4. No abortion questions
5. No funky diseases on your do-da
6. No calls from someone who has funky diseases on their do-da asking to have your checked
7. No emergency trips for hygiene-supplies/pregnancy tests
8. No last minute rushes out to get birth control devices
9. No slippage/seepage in birth control devices
10. Less likely to be a victim of a Bobbit attack
11. Less likely to have an attack named after you
12. More sleep
13. More focus
14. Less wear on bed springs
15. Being able to leave the toilet seat in whatever position you want
16. You don't lose your best shirt to someone who never talks to you again
17. Not waking up next to Chewbacca
18. Not being involved with some obsessive axe-murderer
19. No gender embarrassments
20. Less likely to get arrested for prostitution mistakes
21. Harder for someone to accuse you of rape
22. Less problems with the whole underage thing
23. Less likely to get chased/shot at by jealous boyfriend/husband
24. Less likely to lose good friends over stupid partner reorganizations
25. No he-said/she-said
26. Less junior high level dramas
27. No worries about being caught by parents/siblings
28. Don't have to worry if you're related
29. No worries about whether the person is related to your boss/supervisor
30. Not worrying on who's panties/earring this is
31. Less chance of your tires getting slashed or your car getting keyed
32. You don't lose your favorite shirt to someone who's never going to talk to you again
33. Your stuff less likely to be burned or tossed out on the lawn
34. Space in your bathroom for your stuff
35. You don't have to get a new favorite song because of a breakup
36. No avoiding a restaurant/club because of an ex
37. No fake orgasms
38. No comparisons on your performance versus all the other guys she slept with
39. Less likely that your do-da's end up on the Internet
40. Less likely to end up on Jerry Springer taking about how much of a horse's rear end you are
41. If you get famous you have less trash being rekindled
42. Less political scandals
43. Less time in court
44. Going out with someone without the pressure of trying to coax her to sleep with you
45. Ordering what you want to eat at a restaurant
46. Seeing the movies you want to see
47. Going out casual with your friends not worried about looking good for potential mates
48. Cash not spent on courting can be used in other areas of your life
49. Appreciating a woman beyond bust/butt size
50. Less time talking to uninteresting people
51. Less time discussing subjects you know nothing about
52. Less questions on whether something makes your partner look fat
53. Being able to answer a question like that honestly
54. Less odds of being part of someone else's emotional scars
55. Not having to try to make peace with the spawn from hell she calls a pet

There probably some other possible reasons, but that's what I could come up with off the top of my head

The advantage to not being celibate - and I'm talking even having a fiance you haven't slept with yet - is that you don't have the time to sit around making up stupid lists like this (and it is stupid, a brief glance shows you struggling for ideas in there, you also mix up no sex and no relationships several times).

And really, even the best on that list don't amount too much.

And if you are only celibate cause your afraid of hell, and you really want to have sex, weigh up the proof of God/No God and see which side wins.
Then go get laid.
(I'm not saying hit hard Atheisim, just try being Agnostic for awhile, it's a good baby step).
(and even if you decide "It's faith funky, not facts" go get some anyway. Jesus will forgive you, and if you still get the guilt, marry them or somthing).

[west3man]

Actually yeah, and I consider it something that isn't too hard to ask but that's just me. However we're (as in my religion) not exactly sure that it is forever. There's two schools of thought about how relationships are going to be in Heaven. One of them takes a line from Revelations (I think) that says that in heaven people will not be given in marriage to mean that no one in heaven will be married, that instead we're all going to be like a bunch of brothers and sisters and there will be no more sex. I'm not sure how sex fits into that unless you're saying there's a respected school-of-thought within your religious community that looks forward to Eternity Incestuous.

The other thought (of which I'm apart of because it seems to make the most sense) is that marriage will just be different than it is now and more like how it was in the Garden of Eden, where two people just chose each other and stuck with each other for ever. I say this makes sense because if it was considered good when the Earth was perfect before then why wouldn't it be good after the Earth is perfected again. This is good for me and a lot of people. I think I have too many issues to get married in this life, however there should be a large singles scene in Heaven and there I won't have my problems. But there were only two people in Paradise, right? So, there was no need for a formal marriage.

Btw, I really am asking. Your community may believe that there were more people than just Adam and Eve in Paradise... or any number of other possibilities.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

But there were only two people in Paradise, right? So, there was no need for a formal marriage.


It also wasn't a sin to be naked until they were aware it was a sin.

So knowledge is a sin.

So don't teach your kid nothing, they get into heaven.

[west3man]

It also wasn't a sin to be naked until they were aware it was a sin.

So knowledge is a sin.

So don't teach your kid nothing, they get into heaven.
That one's never sat well with me, either, but then, I'm sure there are believers out there who support a different interpretation - probably some fairly sound ones, at that.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

That one's never sat well with me, either, but then, I'm sure there are believers out there who support a different interpretation - probably some fairly sound ones, at that.

Depends on the definition of "sound".

I'm sure it'll be sound by the rules of religon, but by anynone else's definition of sound?

I dunno.
(they aren't exactly known to be the biggest proponents of provable facts)

[west3man]

Depends on the definition of "sound".

I'm sure it'll be sound by the rules of religon, but by anynone else's definition of sound?

I dunno.
(they aren't exactly known to be the biggest proponents of provable facts)
Subtle nudges away from religion-bashing aren't doing it, so...

I suggest we avoid disrespecting the people whose input we're asking for in this thread... particularly since they're sharing very personal and private details of their lives.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Subtle nudges away from religion-bashing aren't doing it, so...

I suggest we avoid disrespecting the people whose input we're asking for in this thread... particularly since they're sharing very personal and private details of their lives.

Ruin my fun why don't you....

But you were obviously after somthing different in this thread, so I'll stop.

I do blame religon for occasional pangs of guilt I get that can ruin otherwise great sex.
Is it the lord making me feel guilty?
Heck no, it's just that the church - who I once listened to - taught me to feel guilty about such things, things I shouldn't feel guilt over.
(don't get me wrong, I don't go to pieces or punish myself afterwards but occasional pangs).

I just hope that those going without a part of life, and to be honest in a "if you disagree you better have a hell of an argument to back it up kind of way" - sex is a part of life, so if you go without, I hope you've thought it over, because you aren't living the full human experience, or your full potential as a human.

[Rabid Trekkie]

I'm not sure how sex fits into that unless you're saying there's a respected school-of-thought within your religious community that looks forward to Eternity Incestuous.

But there were only two people in Paradise, right? So, there was no need for a formal marriage.

Btw, I really am asking. Your community may believe that there were more people than just Adam and Eve in Paradise... or any number of other possibilities.

No, no incest (that's a sin, well at least it was not too many generations after Adam and Eve) what I meant was that by everyone being like everyone elses brother or sister everyone in heaven would be celibate. Of course everything there is perfect so they say it doesn't matter.

Yes, there were only two people on Earth and they didn't have any official ceremony. But if you go further it talks about Isaac (Abraham's son) getting married. There was no ceremony either, God provided just the right woman for him. We believe that sex is like the marriage ceremony in God's eyes. So maybe in Heaven God will find the perfect girl for you there.

[west3man]

No, no incest (that's a sin, well at least it was not too many generations after Adam and Eve) what I meant was that by everyone being like everyone elses brother or sister everyone in heaven would be celibate. Of course everything there is perfect so they say it doesn't matter.

Yes, there were only two people on Earth and they didn't have any official ceremony. But if you go further it talks about Isaac (Abraham's son) getting married. There was no ceremony either, God provided just the right woman for him. We believe that sex is like the marriage ceremony in God's eyes. So maybe in Heaven God will find the perfect girl for you there.
This touches on some interesting theological points, but I've, so far, avoided exploring them very much, so that we could continue to focus on the main topic... but if things drop off, those tangents will be fair game.

[Andy S.]

And really, even the best on that list don't amount too much.

And if you are only celibate cause your afraid of hell, and you really want to have sex, weigh up the proof of God/No God and see which side wins.
Then go get laid.



As Night's list (which was freakin' awesome, BTW!) pointed out, there are plenty of real-life consequences for having sex before/outside of the context of marriage. Even the religous person who chooses abstinence does so out of reverance for what they believe is God's will for their lives, and not because they are "afraid of hell".

But i don't expect you to understand this, judging by your obvious mockery of those who believe differently than you.

[Asmith]

It's the non-religous celibacy that has me speaking up. Mostly because I think it's just plumb unhealthy.

Especially the viewpoint that if you're not celibate then you're having sex in a loveless way.

Sex doesn't have to be like that.

Sex within real relationships can even be the best. Because it's not about having the sex, it's about loving each other. And expressing that love in a very real physical way. It's not dirty or shameful. It can be a very beautiful expression of your affections to share such personal and private moments exploring each others bodies. Wanting to find ways to give your partner pleasure and take such pleasures freely given in return. Because you both truly care about each other.

You don't have to enter wedlock to find differing degrees of this.

Sex isn't something to shy away from, and it doesn't make you depraved. It can be just another way of communicating your affections for a person. Think of it as saying 'I love you' with flowers, but instead of the flowers you're sliding your genitalia together.

[west3man]

It's the non-religous celibacy that has me speaking up. Mostly because I think it's just plumb unhealthy.
I can understand if you're phrasing it that way b/c it was the most convenient way of showing respect for the religious, but I don't understand how, let's say, a pair of celibate 30-year-old twins will each be healthy or unhealthy, depending on if religion of non-religious-based morality dictated their choices.


How's that for a mouthful?

[JeffreyWKramer]

One of them takes a line from Revelations (I think) that says that in heaven people will not be given in marriage to mean that no one in heaven will be married, that instead we're all going to be like a bunch of brothers and sisters and there will be no more sex.

Or a lot of incest. Heaven as rural Tennessee?

[west3man]

Or a lot of incest. Heaven as rural Tennessee?
Keep reading, my son, my son.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Keep reading, my son, my son.
Oh, I did. I just couldn't get over the image of heaven resembling a family reunion of for the family of Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel.

[Tages]

Then perhaps you could do something about it, like seeking professional help in some fashion?
I'm seeing a psychotherapist starting the 21st, but honestly, I have far more pressing problems to deal with first.

[Asmith]

I thought Ayo answered this list about the advantages of celibacy by Night, perfectly.
But since it's been brought back into play in the discussion...

I realise some of the entries were just funny ones.

1. No unwanted pregnancies
If you want to avoid pregnancy, avoiding sex altogether guarantees this. But, considering the may ways avaiable that lower the risk of an unwanted pregnancy to such small odds, isn't going celibate an over reaction to this fear? You could wear two condoms while your girlfriend takes the pill and you use the rythm method while still making sure you pull out before you ejaculate.

2. No child support
This has more to do with marrying the wrong person.

3. No false positive paternity tests
Celibacy doesn't protect a guy from this. Any woman can claim your the dad if you've had sex or not. An example: Your celibate but a woman says your the daddy, so does a FALSE positive paternity test. Now prove your celibate despite all the 'facts' against you. You've no intact maidenhead to point to, 'daddy'.

4. No abortion questions
Be sensible, lower the risk. Anyway, this is point number 1.

5. No funky diseases on your do-da
Practice safer-sex. If you're sensible, use condoms and don't go home with any girl with the nickname 'Sandpaper Sally' the risks are minimal.

6. No calls from someone who has funky diseases on their do-da asking to have your checked
This is the same as point number 5.

7. No emergency trips for hygiene-supplies/pregnancy tests
I don't know what you mean by 'hygiene-supplies'. You don't mean condoms because you indicate them in the next question. Do you mean tampons? Or pantyliners? Toilet paper? If so, I'm not quite sure how you're incorporating these items into the act of sex.

As for pregnancy tests, this is once again your points numbered 1, 2, 3 & 4.

8. No last minute rushes out to get birth control devices
Condoms you should have already. Both you and the girl. If not, the rare late night dash is certainly better than no sex at all.

9. No slippage/seepage in birth control devices
Accidents do happen. But this is similar to previous points. If you're that worried you can lower the risks several ways.

10. Less likely to be a victim of a Bobbit attack
Whoa! Fear of unwanted babies, abortion, STDs, late night shopping and now mutilation of your genitalia. Best way to avoid this is not to be a drunken abusive SOB to your hysterical crazed violent partner. If you feel you can't avoid either crazed knife-wielding women or being abusive to women, then maybe celibacy is the best option. Otherwise I wouldn't let this put you off sex.

11. Less likely to have an attack named after you
Funny. But it's really very unrealistic.

12. More sleep
But there's a better quality of sleep after sex.

13. More focus
If you're enjoying a regular sexual life, then you find that sex doesn't become an attention grabber. Because you're actually getting it.

14. Less wear on bed springs
That's why they never designed springs for kitchen benchtops.

15. Being able to leave the toilet seat in whatever position you want
You can do that as a sexually active person to, if you live alone. If you're living with a wife or girlfriend then you can still leave the toilet seat in whatever position you want - just as long as it's down.

16. You don't lose your best shirt to someone who never talks to you again
Which is why I always have a fake 'best shirt' for a girl to get strangely and overly attached to

17. Not waking up next to Chewbacca
Well that's alcohol's fault, not sex's!

18. Not being involved with some obsessive axe-murderer
What type of women do you associate with? They all seem to be potential penis loppers and axe murderers!

19. No gender embarrassments
Dressing more manly and not wearing short little mini-skirts usually fixes that problem. As for confusing other men with girls, just don't go home with any girl who has an adam's apple or an erection for that matter!

20. Less likely to get arrested for prostitution mistakes
You could also just NOT go to prostitutes.

21. Harder for someone to accuse you of rape
No it's not. This is point number 3, again.

22. Less problems with the whole underage thing
Another way to avoid the whole 'underage thing', and you might not of thought of this, rather than becoming celibate just keep your dick out of children.

23. Less likely to get chased/shot at by jealous boyfriend/husband
Don't sleep with married women and avoid it. Stick to the single girls (the ones without the axes)

24. Less likely to lose good friends over stupid partner reorganizations
That a relationship point not a celibate one.

25. No he-said/she-said
That's a point about relationships. Not sex.

26. Less junior high level dramas
That's a point about relationships, not sex, btw. Again.

27. No worries about being caught by parents/siblings
Practicing safe sex includes locking the damn door.

28. Don't have to worry if you're related
oh... my... god... Simple rule of thumb. If she's your sister, just DON'T!
Axe wielding, penis stabbing girls and now fear of sleeping with a relation...

29. No worries about whether the person is related to your boss/supervisor
This is even less likely than accidently going to bed with your sister!

30. Not worrying on who's panties/earring this is
Try monogomy. If you want to keep track of all the bras, panties and earings in your place, keep the women down to a managable number.

31. Less chance of your tires getting slashed or your car getting keyed
Be nice to women and don't give them a reason to hate you so much. Also, this is just a toned down version of number 10.

32. You don't lose your favorite shirt to someone who's never going to talk to you again
Hey! This was point number 16. You're not even trying to hide the fact that you keep repeating the same point over and over anymore!

33. Your stuff less likely to be burned or tossed out on the lawn
This is point number 31 (which was point number 10) and not too different from points number 26 and 25.

34. Space in your bathroom for your stuff
It's called Ikea. Use it.
This is a reasons to avoid relationships, not sex.

35. You don't have to get a new favorite song because of a breakup
Relationship.

36. No avoiding a restaurant/club because of an ex
Well treat the ex nicely in the first place so you don't drive her to burn your stuff, slash your tires and go after your penis with an axe and maybe you'll find it possible to eat in the same restaurant as her. But this is relationship not celibate point.

37. No fake orgasms
Don't worry, most girls fake orgasms well enough that you'll never realise. Another way around that would be to get good enough that she won't need to.

38. No comparisons on your performance versus all the other guys she slept with
Don't ask, don't tell. Anyway, most girls are nice enough to lie about shit like that.

39. Less likely that your do-da's end up on the Internet
I'm not too sure that such a common problem for people outside of the porn industry.

40. Less likely to end up on Jerry Springer taking about how much of a horse's rear end you are
I think Jerry Springer may just be a matter of time - celibacy or not...

41. If you get famous you have less trash being rekindled
Yes. That's a reason to not have sex. Just in case you become famous. It's surprising you don't hear more peole give this as a reason for celibacy.

42. Less political scandals
This point number 41 Are you worried you might become president?

43. Less time in court
This is a repeat of other points. Don't treat women bad and avoid all of this.

44. Going out with someone without the pressure of trying to coax her to sleep with you
Just because you're a sexually active person doesn't mean you have to try and sleep with everybody.

45. Ordering what you want to eat at a restaurant
If you are sexually active you no longer get to choose your meal from the standard menu? It's called a girlfriend, not your mother.

46. Seeing the movies you want to see
Relationship point.

47. Going out casual with your friends not worried about looking good for potential mates
You can still do that and not be celibate. Because you've had sex doesn't mean you're ALWAYS on the prowl for more.

48. Cash not spent on courting can be used in other areas of your life
Inflatable dolls?

49. Appreciating a woman beyond bust/butt size
You can do that and still have sex with her. One does not over-ride the other!

50. Less time talking to uninteresting people
If they're uninteresting, don't sleep with them! Remember to appreciate women for more than just they're bust size.

51. Less time discussing subjects you know nothing about
Well that's a relationship thing again. Plus, you can avoid that by maybe hanging out with women you have more in common with (not your sister!)

52. Less questions on whether something makes your partner look fat
Relationship point again. Anyway, the answer is always "Fat? I can't imagine how anything could make you look fat!" - but it has to be said with a straight face.

53. Being able to answer a question like that honestly
Relationship again. And NEVER answer that question honeslty!

54. Less odds of being part of someone else's emotional scars
Be a nice person and you'll have a better chance of being part of someone else's fond memories instead.

55. Not having to try to make peace with the spawn from hell she calls a pet
Relationship

[Asmith]

I can understand if you're phrasing it that way b/c it was the most convenient way of showing respect for the religious, but I don't understand how, let's say, a pair of celibate 30-year-old twins will each be healthy or unhealthy, depending on if religion of non-religious-based morality dictated their choices.


How's that for a mouthful?

Yep, that was quite a mouthful!

And yes, I was trying to avoid an anti-religous stance in my post.

However if you look at a variety of studys, many show that having a healthy sex life is quite beneficial to you. Less heart attacks in men, increased immune systems in women and plenty more.

[Z-man]

Sex, as near as I can tell, makes people weak. It makes people dependent on that feeling of release. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

[west3man]

Yep, that was quite a mouthful!

And yes, I was trying to avoid an anti-religous stance in my post.

However if you look at a variety of studys, many show that having a healthy sex life is quite beneficial to you. Less heart attacks in men, increased immune systems in women and plenty more.
What I was saying is that you appeared to be saying that given two celibate people, the one who is celibate for religious reasons is more or less healthy than the one how is celibate for non-religious reasons.

I'll assume that wasn't what you meant, though.

[Night]

It's the non-religous celibacy that has me speaking up. Mostly because I think it's just plumb unhealthy.Celibacy is not unhealthy. The pleasure of sex comes mainly from the release of endorphins people involved feel a high from chemicals created in their bodies. These chemicals merely affect mode and don't provide much health benefit. I have yet to hear about an epidemic like AIDS that was caused by not having sex.

Especially the viewpoint that if you're not celibate then you're having sex in a loveless way. Yes, but the viewpoint that one cannot be happy unless you’re having sex is a much more dangerous one. It hints of addiction, which reminds me, the same chemicals that sex releases can be obtained in other ways. Some of your more popular drugs have similar effects. The focus I spoke of in my list comes from the absence of these chemicals. In fact, it is easier to deny your sexual drive during periods when you’re not even masturbating or indulging in sexual literature, because your system is free of these chemicals.

Sex within real relationships can even be the best. Because it's not about having the sex, it's about loving each other. And expressing that love in a very real physical way. It's not dirty or shameful. It can be a very beautiful expression of your affections to share such personal and private moments exploring each others bodies. Wanting to find ways to give your partner pleasure and take such pleasures freely given in return. Because you both truly care about each other

You don't have to enter wedlock to find differing degrees of this.Ether you love someone or you don’t. The problem is that few even take the time to know someone before engaging in this. You don’t know your partners real boundaries are. It’s a terrible game you’re playing with someone’s emotions when you involve them in a relationship that you don’t plan to make good on. If you think that’s love, you and I have completely different definitions of the word.

Sex isn't something to shy away from, and it doesn't make you depraved. It can be just another way of communicating your affections for a person. Think of it as saying 'I love you' with flowers, but instead of the flowers you're sliding your genitalia together. Yes, and if you’re not willing to put the extra effort in truly loving someone… the bigger the liar you become. Love becomes meaningless. Love is a verb, it requires action and more action than merely enjoying each others time for a short period.

I don’t expect there to be understanding here. I have a slight empathic and prophetic ability when it comes to the mood of a room or sometimes the emotions of others. I see how much damage is done when people have your ‘differing degrees' of love for each other. With all this insight, however, I’ve never seen a case where someone doesn’t get emotionally scarred, even if both parties claim to believe open relationships.

Nothing is more terrible than activity without insight. - Thomas Calyle

[Rabid Trekkie]

It also wasn't a sin to be naked until they were aware it was a sin.

So knowledge is a sin.

So don't teach your kid nothing, they get into heaven.

Forgive me if this is a tangent but I just really wanted to answer this. There are two reasonings for the verse that says that Adam and Eve were naked and not ashamed. One is that they were actually naked. The reason that this was not a sin before was because there were no perverted thoughts to go with nudity, Adam wasn't just staring at Eve the whole time but neither was he avoiding looking at her directly as if he was embarrased. When they ate from the tree that God said for them not to eat from they began having those thoughts and realized they needed a covering.

Then there is also the idea (this one is more believed by my church I think) that they wore a robe of righteousness like the saved are going to get in Heaven. This changes the meaning of the verse I mentioned above to being the first time they saw each other naked to being the first time they consumated their relationship.

And knowledge isn't evil. It was more like telling your kid not to touch the fire on the stove.

[Peter]

Would you go without or recommend that others go without sex FOREVER?

Yes.

Well, not the second part, but for the first part of that question? Unquestionably yes. I plan on avoiding sex with every fibre of my being, and if I die a virgin (which is a sincere hope), I'll know I did something right.

Sex comes near me and I kick it in the face really hard until it goes away. I just don't want anything to do with the entire concept.

That blunt enough? :)

[west3man]

Yes.

Well, not the second part, but for the first part of that question? Unquestionably yes. I plan on avoiding sex with every fibre of my being, and if I die a virgin (which is a sincere hope), I'll know I did something right.

Sex comes near me and I kick it in the face really hard until it goes away. I just don't want anything to do with the entire concept.

That blunt enough? :)
Sure. Care to share why?

[west3man]

Forgive me if this is a tangent but I just really wanted to answer this. There are two reasonings for the verse that says that Adam and Eve were naked and not ashamed. One is that they were actually naked. The reason that this was not a sin before was because there were no perverted thoughts to go with nudity, Adam wasn't just staring at Eve the whole time but neither was he avoiding looking at her directly as if he was embarrased. When they ate from the tree that God said for them not to eat from they began having those thoughts and realized they needed a covering. Still sounds like the same thing.

Except now it we also have nudity being a sin.

Then there is also the idea (this one is more believed by my church I think) that they wore a robe of righteousness like the saved are going to get in Heaven. This changes the meaning of the verse I mentioned above to being the first time they saw each other naked to being the first time they consumated their relationship. I'd be interested in seeing what Biblical text supports this assertion that they wore robes of righteousness AND that text that's almost universally been interpreted as saying that they saw and noticed each others' nakedness ACTUALLY MEANT that they had sex.

And knowledge isn't evil. It was more like telling your kid not to touch the fire on the stove. Yes, because your kid having that fire would be a bad thing.

???

[Winslow]

Still sounds like the same thing.

Except now it we also have nudity being a sin.

Funky is making a "straw man" attack against Christianity (or orthodox Judaism), and taking the meaning of the Biblical verses out of context. I realize it's a "tongue in cheek" post intended to get a laugh, and not to make a point (or maybe it was I dunno).

But since it's sparked some misunderstanding regarding the Christian view of sex and nudity, I'll try to clarify.

The problem introduced by the "fall of mankind" into sinfulness is shame. The most potent symbol of "shame" is nudity. Before the fall of man, there was no shame. After disobedience and the horrors of sin enter the world, there is a problem with shame.

God promises to take away the shame, so we can be completely "naked" before him and not feel shame anymore (like in the garden). In Christian belief, that's what Jesus did on the cross.

It's really not about the sinfulness of nudity or the body being dirty at all.

Knowledge is certainly not a sin, nor is education. It is Christian belief that knowledge is the prevailing faculty toward spiritual enlightenment. That's part of the reason so many universities in the United States started out as seminaries (all of the Ivy League schools BTW).

Hope that helps to clarify some things.

And I don't buy the whole robes of righteoussness deal.

[west3man]

It's really not about the sinfulness of nudity or the body being dirty at all.

Knowledge is certainly not a sin, nor is education. It is Christian belief that knowledge is the prevailing faculty toward spiritual enlightenment. That's part of the reason so many universities in the United States started out as seminaries (all of the Ivy League schools BTW).

I've heard the side-effects of eating the fruit of that tree described as "knowledge of good and evil." Maybe your religion refers to it differently.

The Bible specifically mentions that Adam and Eve were nude. They ate of the tree then became aware of their nudity, experienced shame, and covered up. As a consequence, those of us who came after them, for the most part, continue to associate shame with nudity... and so we clothe ourselves for this reason, as opposed to doing so out of necessity.

That ever-lasting and quite literal apparent-consequence seems to directly contradict the above. Are you saying the two are completely unrelated?

[Peter]

Sure. Care to share why?

A couple of reasons.

1. Religious, although not the main reason.

2. Sex is about losing inhibitions, and I'm pretty sure the only reason I'm not a monster is because all of my inhibitions are rock-solid, held in place by adamantium. "If it feels good do it" is an attitude I detest, and putting it bluntly I'm sure I'd turn into a monster.

3. I don't see the point. It's messy, smelly, I'm fairly sure it would hurt, and what does it accomplish? I'm no better a person, my life still stucks, and the world is still a rotten place. Better investing that energy somewhere else.

4. The attitude people have to sex -- "You need to be out screwing yourself senseless and then blaming everybody else because you're a whore" -- just annoys me so much. Eugh. I don't want anything to do with it, just to be contrary.

5. As for what I'm missing... I nearly knocked myself out once. I don't really think I need anybody else to accomplish that pathetic, 30-second rush.

There's probably more reasons, but those are the big ones.

[Winslow]

Shame is a universal human experience. The Bible has a story to explain why. The Bible explains that it's because we are in sin, and not in harmony with God.

Nakedness in the Biblical text is a plot device to explain the deeper problem of shame, not to examine nudity. It's not about being nude. It's about the great divide between humanity and our Creator. We can no longer ne "nude" in front of Him and not feel shame because of our sin and failings.

It was NOT the "attainment of knowledge" that was a problem - it was their failure to trust God, to trust in His Provision, and to obey Him.

I realize I just repeated myself, because the text and what I just expained seem (at least to me), to be in harmony and not contradicting.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Celibacy is not unhealthy. The pleasure of sex comes mainly from the release of endorphins people involved feel a high from chemicals created in their bodies. These chemicals merely affect mode and don't provide much health benefit.

Wrong-o. First off, endorphins help with natural healing/recuperative processes. Second, other neurotransmitters and endocrines besides endorphins are involved/released by sexual arousal and orgasm. Sex helps regulate hormone and neurotransmitter levels. Third, there has been a link observed between frequency of sex and reduced risk of prostate and testicular cancer. Fourth, people who report regular, satisfying sex have lower rates of depression, and less severe incidence of depression overall, than those who do without.

[west3man]

A couple of reasons.

1. Religious, although not the main reason. Is it that you associate lust with sex and sinning with lust?

2. Sex is about losing inhibitions, and I'm pretty sure the only reason I'm not a monster is because all of my inhibitions are rock-solid, held in place by adamantium. "If it feels good do it" is an attitude I detest, and putting it bluntly I'm sure I'd turn into a monster. It's about losing SOME inhibitions, not all. Aren't there things you don't do, but wish you did?

3. I don't see the point. It's messy, smelly, I'm fairly sure it would hurt, Considering your name, I thought you were male.

Assumptions aside, why do you think it would hurt?

and what does it accomplish? Life.

I'm no better a person, my life still stucks, and the world is still a rotten place. Better investing that energy somewhere else. Is there nothing you do that doesn't result in global or personal betterment?

4. The attitude people have to sex -- "You need to be out screwing yourself senseless and then blaming everybody else because you're a whore" -- just annoys me so much. Eugh. I don't want anything to do with it, just to be contrary. How does this make you a better person, stop your life from sucking, or stop the world from being a rotten place?

I hope you don't think every sexually active person that has ever or will ever live sees sex that way.

5. As for what I'm missing... I nearly knocked myself out once. I don't really think I need anybody else to accomplish that pathetic, 30-second rush. So, you've stopped masturbating?

There's probably more reasons, but those are the big ones. Thanks.

[west3man]

Shame is a universal human experience. The Bible has a story to explain why. The Bible explains that it's because we are in sin, and not in harmony with God.

Nakedness in the Biblical text is a plot device to explain the deeper problem of shame, not to examine nudity. It's not about being nude. It's about the great divide between humanity and our Creator. We can no longer ne "nude" in front of Him and not feel shame because of our sin and failings.

It was NOT the "attainment of knowledge" that was a problem - it was their failure to trust God, to trust in His Provision, and to obey Him.

I realize I just repeated myself, because the text and what I just expained seem (at least to me), to be in harmony and not contradicting.
I'm still wondering about the fact that we wear clothes, now. Are you going to address that?

Do you chalk it up as coincidence?

[Winslow]

I'm still wondering about the fact that we wear clothes, now. Are you going to address that?

Do you chalk it up as coincidence?

No, it's not a coincidence. I'm just saying that's not the main point.

What the Bible (as a story) holds out for the Christian as hope, is that one day we will be able to be "naked" (figuratively) before God and be unashamed in the same way a spouse can be naked (actually) before their partner and be unashamed.

[Rabid Trekkie]

Still sounds like the same thing.

Except now it we also have nudity being a sin.

I'd be interested in seeing what Biblical text supports this assertion that they wore robes of righteousness AND that text that's almost universally been interpreted as saying that they saw and noticed each others' nakedness ACTUALLY MEANT that they had sex.

Yes, because your kid having that fire would be a bad thing.

???

For my last line I rushed it trying to get it in before my computer restarted itself. What I meant was knowledge is not a sin. The whole Earth was put before them to learn about. However He told them don't touch the tree or else they would die. That was what I was alluding to with the child and the oven. If that fruit had not been eaten it isn't that we were given knowledge as an evil thing, but we suddenly realised that we could use the knowledge we had for two purposes. One choice and we help people and ourselves, the other and we help ourselves but hurt others.
Imagine all human knowledge being used only for good and not one person using that knowledge to hurt someone. Everyone could master the Kama Sutra (thought I'd pick something thread appropriate) and everything else to do with sex and never once would anyone think of rape or any other harmful uses of sex.

And honestly there is not much biblical support for no nudity in the garden, though you could reason that if we are going to get those robes at the end when we are perfect why would Adam and Eve not have had them when they were perfect. My religion gets this teaching from a lady who helped found our religion and who we believe passed the Biblical tests for being a prophet. Her word isn't above the Bible by any means but on the issue of "were Adam and Eve naked or not" its not that big of a deal which way you go. Just one of the few details that seperate my branch of Christianity from others.

[west3man]

No, it's not a coincidence. I'm just saying that's not the main point.

What the Bible (as a story) holds out for the Christian as hope, is that one day we will be able to be "naked" (figuratively) before God and be unashamed in the same way a spouse can be naked (actually) before their partner and be unashamed.

I'm not trying to argumentative here, but if you're not denying it's meaning, just saying there's more to it, then you've not disproved FGJ's interpretation. Maybe that was never your intent, but I thought it was.

----------

In trying to meet you half-way, I keep trying to think of examples that could be taken literally, but that don't necessarily speak to knowledge being a bad thing. The best I've been able to come up with, so far, is ...

What if the fruit of that tree allowed them to read each others' minds. It's still an example of gaining knowledge that already exists, but that could be interpeted as "bad." After all, we think some bad things now and then, but since no one knows, no harm's done. If we could read each others' thoughts, it'd be the equivalent of everyone saying what they're thinking all the time without regard for consequence. That could be a bad thing.

Somehow, this example seems to fall short, but I'm not able to precisely articulate the reasons for that, at the moment.

[west3man]

For my last line I rushed it trying to get it in before my computer restarted itself. What I meant was knowledge is not a sin. The whole Earth was put before them to learn about. However He told them don't touch the tree or else they would die. That was what I was alluding to with the child and the oven. If that fruit had not been eaten it isn't that we were given knowledge as an evil thing, but we suddenly realised that we could use the knowledge we had for two purposes. One choice and we help people and ourselves, the other and we help ourselves but hurt others.
Imagine all human knowledge being used only for good and not one person using that knowledge to hurt someone. Everyone could master the Kama Sutra (thought I'd pick something thread appropriate) and everything else to do with sex and never once would anyone think of rape or any other harmful uses of sex. I'm sure you don't mean to, but you keep doing the same thing. You're saying knowledge isn't a bad thing, but then you point out the fact that they were denied knowledge, took the knowledge, without permission, and as a result the knowledge caused them to lose their "perfection."

The fact that they were disobeying DOES seem relevant, however so does the fact that all they received was knowledge.

And honestly there is not much biblical support for no nudity in the garden, That much I'd read for myself. I thought it was pretty clear on that point. Maybe I should take another look.

[Winslow]

I'm not trying to argumentative here, but if you're not denying it's meaning, just saying there's more to it, then you've not disproved FGJ's interpretation. Maybe that was never your intent, but I thought it was.

Actually - that was my intent - and I guess I've failed to communicate or explain Christain doctrine effectively.

How about this -

It was NOT the pursuit of knowledge, or the attainment of knowledge, as we commonly define it today. But it was the desire to be independent of God and attain a "sort of knowledge" that would make them "gods" or self sufficient, not needing God anymore.

The serpent lied and told them that this "knowledge" would do that (make them self sufficient and indepedent of god - or become "gods" themsleves). They were enticed and believed the serpent rather than trust God.

So we (humans) balked at the role of being created beings that worship our creator. Instead we sought knowledge that would make us independent of our need for him and his role as creator. Such "knowledge" does not exist (according to Christian doctrine), but we still seek it.

[west3man]

Actually - that was my intent - and I guess I've failed to communicate or explain Christain doctrine effectively.

How about this -

It was NOT the pursuit of knowledge, or the attainment of knowledge, as we commonly define it today. But it was the desire to be independent of God and attain a "sort of knowledge" that would make them "gods" or self sufficient, not needing God anymore. What "sort of knowledge" should we, as mortals, not be privy to?

Among the most ironic elements of this discussion is the apparent fact that in order to prove to me that the Bible WASN'T showing knowledge as a bad thing, you've got to demonstrate that there are certain types of knowledge that ARE, according to the Bible.

I understand if you'd rather just agree to disagree on this, but if you're willing to and interested in continuing, so am I.

[Rabid Trekkie]

I'm sure you don't mean to, but you keep doing the same thing. You're saying knowledge isn't a bad thing, but then you point out the fact that they were denied knowledge, took the knowledge, without permission, and as a result the knowledge caused them to lose their "perfection."

The fact that they were disobeying DOES seem relevant, however so does the fact that all they received was knowledge.

That much I'd read for myself. I thought it was pretty clear on that point. Maybe I should take another look.

The fruit did not give knowledge, it allowed them to use the knowledge they did have for wrong doings. As I tried saying before, a man could become a sexual god but never have the idea of rape ever enter his mind.

Or take the creation of nitroglycerin, it can be a very useful tool. It aids us in the creation of mountain top monuments, making mines to get minerals needed for the creation of energy. Now imagine the idea that you could use it to kill someone else was a foreign concept to anyone. We'd have Mount Rushmore with no one ever throwing a grenade at anyone else.

Am I making it any more clear?

[west3man]

The fruit did not give knowledge, it allowed them to use the knowledge they did have for wrong doings. As I tried saying before, a man could become a sexual god but never have the idea of rape ever enter his mind. ...except for the fact that they had to do "wrong" in order to eat of the tree in the first place.

It's like being on a camping trip, settling into two camps, and discovering you need a fire. Then someone says, "I've got it, we can get our fire from yours." Then someone says, "But we don't have one," and the first person replies, "That's okay. You can get yours from ours! See?"

Chicken & egg.

Or take the creation of nitroglycerin, it can be a very useful tool. It aids us in the creation of mountain top monuments, making mines to get minerals needed for the creation of energy. Now imagine the idea that you could use it to kill someone else was a foreign concept to anyone. We'd have Mount Rushmore with no one ever throwing a grenade at anyone else.

Am I making it any more clear?
You're saying certain knowledge is bad.

[Rabid Trekkie]

...except for the fact that they had to do "wrong" in order to eat of the tree in the first place.

It's like being on a camping trip, settling into two camps, and discovering you need a fire. Then someone says, "I've got it, we can get our fire from yours." Then someone says, "But we don't have one," and the first person replies, "That's okay. You can get yours from ours! See?"

Chicken & egg.


You're saying certain knowledge is bad.

Yeah, certain knowledge is bad. I mean there should be no reason that a person needs to learn how to break someone else's neck and yet here we are. Everybody pretty much knows its just one hand on the top of the head and the other holding the jaw and just pull in opposite directions. You can get it from any tv show, is it really that good a thing to know?

Knowledge is fine until you discover ways to use it to hurt others, unfortunately now we need some of that knowledge to protect ourselves. Someone with a functional knowledge can protect themselves from an unarmed attacker. Back in Eden though the knowledge on how to inflict pain was unneeded.

And the first wrong done wasn't eating the fruit, it was pride and jealousy. Eve only thought about getting the fruit when she was told she could be like God and have what He has. She became jealous of God and then became pridefull thinking that she was good enough to be like God.

Edit: If you haven't read it before and want to get a good idea about the thoughts of Christianity in general without any denomination attached I'd suggest Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. It's a small book that explains the basic principles and thoughts of christianity.

[Winslow]

What "sort of knowledge" should we, as mortals, not be privy to?

Among the most ironic elements of this discussion is the apparent fact that in order to prove to me that the Bible WASN'T showing knowledge as a bad thing, you've got to demonstrate that there are certain types of knowledge that ARE, according to the Bible.

I understand if you'd rather just agree to disagree on this, but if you're willing to and interested in continuing, so am I.

I'm still not certain I'm communicating. I'll give it another shot. I'm not really looking for agreement, just trying to explain a POV.

The type of "knowledge" Adam and Eve sought does not exist. It is false and a lie (according to Christian doctrine).

What is the Knowledge they sought? A way to be free of God's benevolent rule, and to displace his role as creator and mankind's role as a created being. Adam and Eve did not want their role to serve the Creator, and rejected the notion that they were made for the Creator.

So there is no type of "knowledge" that is forbidden, because the knowledge Adam and Eve sought is a lie and doesn't exist.

The Biblical story is one of people, again and again, seeking to be free (which ironically is enslavement) from God's benevolent rule and care. And it all started with Adam and Eve believing a snake rather than God.

What I am saying is certainly anathema to some, especially if one takes a humanist (or human centric) viewpoint on life.

But it's not about "knowledge" as much as its about rebellion against God's benevolent rule, and seeking knowledge (that does not exist) to do that.

[west3man]

Yeah, certain knowledge is bad. I mean there should be no reason that a person needs to learn how to break someone else's neck and yet here we are. Everybody pretty much knows its just one hand on the top of the head and the other holding the jaw and just pull in opposite directions. You can get it from any tv show, is it really that good a thing to know? You just shared that knowledge with me and however many other people read your post. If that's an example of "bad knowledge," as you seem to be implying, doesn't that mean you just did a bad thing?

I think it WOULD mean that, IF that knowledge were necessarily bad.

Maybe I need to think of them as children who just weren't ready for that knowledge, yet. Something about that bugs me, too, though.

Knowledge is fine until you discover ways to use it to hurt others, unfortunately now we need some of that knowledge to protect ourselves. Someone with a functional knowledge can protect themselves from an unarmed attacker. Back in Eden though the knowledge on how to inflict pain was unneeded. So, if you don't need knowledge, at a particular point in time, that knowledge automatically qualifies as "bad?"

This still sounds like the child analogy we discussed. I've still got a problem with it, but will give it more thought.

And the first wrong done wasn't eating the fruit, it was pride and jealousy. Eve only thought about getting the fruit when she was told she could be like God and have what He has. She became jealous of God and then became pridefull thinking that she was good enough to be like God. You're, again, just supporting MY POINT that clearly it did not take consumption of the fruit for them to have the knowledge, ability, or desire to do wrong. That was done before they ever touched the fruit.

[west3man]

I'm still not certain I'm communicating. I'll give it another shot. I'm not really looking for agreement, just trying to explain a POV.

The type of "knowledge" Adam and Eve sought does not exist. It is false and a lie (according to Christian doctrine).

What is the Knowledge they sought? A way to be free of God's benevolent rule, and to displace his role as creator and mankind's role as a created being. Adam and Eve did not want their role to serve the Creator, and rejected the notion that they were made for the Creator.

So there is no type of "knowledge" that is forbidden, because the knowledge Adam and Eve sought is a lie and doesn't exist.

The Biblical story is one of people, again and again, seeking to be free (which ironically is enslavement) from God's benevolent rule and care. And it all started with Adam and Eve believing a snake rather than God.

What I am saying is certainly anathema to some, especially if one takes a humanist (or human centric) viewpoint on life.

But it's not about "knowledge" as much as its about rebellion against God's benevolent rule, and seeking knowledge (that does not exist) to do that.

We're moving further and further away from the expressed nudity. If it WAS a literal issue in the Adam/Eve/God situation we're discussing, then it still seems obvious that this IS one among however many statements the Bible makes.

Either there was or there was not a fruit which, upon consumption would provide the consumer with knowledge or good and evil and/or nakedness. If I'm not getting you and RT mixed up, you have agreed that this IS a literal element from the story.

Whether it's knowledge of "good and evil" or "nakedness," might make a difference in this discussion, though. Which would you say it was, if either?

[Rabid Trekkie]

You just shared that knowledge with me and however many other people read your post. If that's an example of "bad knowledge," as you seem to be implying, doesn't that mean you just did a bad thing?

I think it WOULD mean that, IF that knowledge were necessarily bad.

Maybe I need to think of them as children who just weren't ready for that knowledge, yet. Something about that bugs me, too, though.

So, if you don't need knowledge, at a particular point in time, that knowledge automatically qualifies as "bad?"

This still sounds like the child analogy we discussed. I've still got a problem with it, but will give it more thought.

You're, again, just supporting MY POINT that clearly it did not take consumption of the fruit for them to have the knowledge, ability, or desire to do wrong. That was done before they ever touched the fruit.

I guess I'm just not explaining myself well enough. I don't know how else to say it though. Winslow is touching on the same points though differently than I am, maybe combine what both of us are saying and that will help.

Sorry.

[Tages]

Funky is making a "straw man" attack against Christianity (or orthodox Judaism), and taking the meaning of the Biblical verses out of context. I realize it's a "tongue in cheek" post intended to get a laugh, and not to make a point (or maybe it was I dunno).
No, he's serious. Funky believes that his word is (ironically enough) right as Gospel, that he doesn't need proof or even to understand what he's talking about to be right, and that disagreeing with him means you must have some sort of psychological problem.

[Michael P]

28. Don't have to worry if you're related
oh... my... god... Simple rule of thumb. If she's your sister, just DON'T!
Axe wielding, penis stabbing girls and now fear of sleeping with a relation...

Actually, Asmith, I'm adopted, so this is a somewhat legitimate concern for me; I may very well have a smoking hot half-sister or cousin out there. But I rarely think of it, and when I do, I tell myself that the odds of the two of us just meeting randomly, *and* dating, *and* doing it, are pretty low.

[Rabid Trekkie]

Actually, Asmith, I'm adopted, so this is a somewhat legitimate concern for me; I may very well have a smoking hot half-sister or cousin out there. But I rarely think of it, and when I do, I tell myself that the odds of the two of us just meeting randomly, *and* dating, *and* doing it, are pretty low.

Unless your life is a soap opera similar to The Truman Show and everyone on here are just fans who are allowed to post on here with you.

[Winslow]

We're moving further and further away from the expressed nudity. If it WAS a literal issue in the Adam/Eve/God situation we're discussing, then it still seems obvious that this IS one among however many statements the Bible makes.

Yes, I believe it was literal.

But the point isn't that the body is bad. The point is that there was no shame (or innocence) at one time.

Like my anecdotal point above, that maybe desreves repeating, there was a time when God and mankind shared the kind of relationship (like a married couple) where we could be naked in front of each other and not experience shame.

BTW, the point I think I'm not communicating well is that the nakedness is BOTH literal AND figurative. Ancient Hebrew literature combines duality in its texts all the time.

Either there was or there was not a fruit which, upon consumption would provide the consumer with knowledge or good and evil and/or nakedness. If I'm not getting you and RT mixed up, you have agreed that this IS a literal element from the story.

Whether it's knowledge of "good and evil" or "nakedness," might make a difference in this discussion, though. Which would you say it was, if either?

It's both.

The "knowledge" attained didn't deliver. They remained created beings, and God remained the Creator.

The circumstance of their pursuit of this "false knowledge" was shame, and a desire to hide their exposed bodies (and exposed souls) from God.

The purpose of the creation story is to explain why the world is so messed up. The purpose of the creation story is NOT to make a statement about the concepts of knowledge or nakedness. If one makes deductions about nudity or knowledge that do not complement the purpose of the story, it's a bad interpretation, and taking conclusions out of context.

[Michael P]

Unless your life is a soap opera similar to The Truman Show and everyone on here are just fans who are allowed to post on here with you.
If my life were a TV show, it would have been cancelled a long time ago.

[west3man]

Yes, I believe it was literal.

But the point isn't that the body is bad. The point is that there was no shame (or innocence) at one time.

Like my anecdotal point above, that maybe desreves repeating, there was a time when God and mankind shared the kind of relationship (like a married couple) where we could be naked in front of each other and not experience shame.

BTW, the point I think I'm not communicating well is that the nakedness is BOTH literal AND figurative. Ancient Hebrew literature combines duality in its texts all the time. Maybe I've neglected to say this all along but, I GET THAT. Literal AND figurative.

What I've been saying is that the literal part means something. Your counter-argument to that has been to demonstrate the figurative, which does NOT negate the point of the literal.



It's both.

The "knowledge" attained didn't deliver. They remained created beings, and God remained the Creator.

The circumstance of their pursuit of this "false knowledge" was shame, and a desire to hide their exposed bodies (and exposed souls) from God.

The purpose of the creation story is to explain why the world is so messed up. The purpose of the creation story is NOT to make a statement about the concepts of knowledge or nakedness. If one makes deductions about nudity or knowledge that do not complement the purpose of the story, it's a bad interpretation, and taking conclusions out of context.

Again, it was either a tree that gave them knowledge or it wasn't. If gave them ANY knowledge, regardless of what kind of knowledge it was, then that knowledge was what God wanted them to remain without. If there was NO knowledge, then their shame was simply because they'd done a bad thing.



Check this, as well: If you tell a story MEANT to teach your kids that sexuality is okay, but sex is something that needs to be handled responsibly, BUT you tell a story that shows sex is bad, and only bad,... then you passed on another message, whether you intended to or not.

Don't blame the audience for the story being flawed.

[Night]

Maybe I've neglected to say this all along but, I GET THAT. Literal AND figurative.

.....


Again, it was either a tree that gave them knowledge or it wasn't. If gave them ANY knowledge, regardless of what kind of knowledge it was, then that knowledge was what God wanted them to remain without. If there was NO knowledge, then their shame was simply because they'd done a bad thing.
....

Don't blame the audience for the story being flawed.

This is a good topic... but is serious thread drift.

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=52563

[west3man]

This is a good topic... but is serious thread drift.

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=52563
Which is why I mentioned some pages back that I'd avoid certain tangents, to keep the focus on the original topic. However, this topic has reared its head more than once and this time it seemed that the responses to the main topic had already been reduced to a trickle, so I pursued it.

In case there's someone who wants to discuss the original topic, but is hesitant due to this digression, I'll join you in that other thread. I'd be interested in seeing if this one drops off the map, as a result.

[Winslow]

What I've been saying is that the literal part means something. Your counter-argument to that has been to demonstrate the figurative, which does NOT negate the point of the literal.

But if you take the literal out of context with the intention of the figurative - you've MISSED the point entirely

Again, it was either a tree that gave them knowledge or it wasn't. If gave them ANY knowledge, regardless of what kind of knowledge it was, then that knowledge was what God wanted them to remain without. If there was NO knowledge, then their shame was simply because they'd done a bad thing.

They sought knowledge apart from God. In other words, they sought the right to determine for themselves what is good and evil rather than depend on God for such insights.

And yes, the shame was the cause of having done a bad thing.

Check this, as well: If you tell a story MEANT to teach your kids that sexuality is okay, but sex is something that needs to be handled responsibly, BUT you tell a story that shows sex is bad, and only bad,... then you passed on another message, whether you intended to or not.

Don't blame the audience for the story being flawed.

The story isn't flawed. People don't take the time to understand it.

As for the anecdotal about teaching kids about sex, I don't see how one can teach sex is O.K. AND sex is bad. They don't complement.

The Bible is pretty clear throughout that God is the ideal of everything good and pure and perfect. Good is determined and defined by God and His nature, not my mankind's "knowledge." When mankind seeks good and pure and perfect apart from God, we go astray.

The Bible never celebrates ignorance. Ignorance is not one of the virtues extolled by the orthodox Judea/Christian ethic. To use the story of the Fall in the creation account and slander Christianity by saying it celebrates ignorance is completely without merit, and completely missing the point of the story (or myth if you will).

Nobody on these boards would allow a stupid interpretation of a comic story unchallenged. I guess I'm challenging a rather stupid conclusion that Christianity celebrates ignorance.

As a segue - One can make a historical argument that religous institituions and the Christian church have sought to suppress truth. But such occurences are religous institutions departing from the ideals they teach, not the fruit of a dogma that celebrates ignorance.

[west3man]

But if you take the literal out of context with the intention of the figurative - you've MISSED the point entirely I disagree.

At this point, I've considered it on both levels and, as I've stated, did NOT miss the point.

In fact, your strictly figurative interpretation seems to be what's making you miss the literal point entirely. Maybe that's not the case, but that how it appears. I have demonstrated, hopefully to your satisfaction, that I get the one point. You haven't demonstrated that you get the other.

They sought knowledge apart from God. In other words, they sought the right to determine for themselves what is good and evil rather than depend on God for such insights. Does nothing about those two sentences not seem... odd to you?

As for the anecdotal about teaching kids about sex, I don't see how one can teach sex is O.K. AND sex is bad. They don't complement. I didn't say they did.

I said that if your story intentionally provides one lesson but unintentionally provides another, one ought to recognize that, as opposed to telling the reader to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

The Bible is pretty clear throughout that God is the ideal of everything good and pure and perfect. Good is determined and defined by God and His nature, not my mankind's "knowledge." When mankind seeks good and pure and perfect apart from God, we go astray.

The Bible never celebrates ignorance. Ignorance is not one of the virtues extolled by the orthodox Judea/Christian ethic. To use the story of the Fall in the creation account and slander Christianity by saying it celebrates ignorance is completely without merit, and completely missing the point of the story (or myth if you will).

Nobody on these boards would allow a stupid interpretation of a comic story unchallenged. I guess I'm challenging a rather stupid conclusion that Christianity celebrates ignorance. This is probably a good point for me to drop out of this discussion.

As a segue - One can make a historical argument that religous institituions and the Christian church have sought to suppress truth. But such occurences are religous institutions departing from the ideals they teach, not the fruit of a dogma that celebrates ignorance. Yeah.

[Winslow]

At this point, I've considered it on both levels and, as I've stated, did NOT miss the point.

I meant "you" as a third person interpreting - I didn't mean to imply or accuse that you personally were casually dismissing my posts.

So I apologize by my choice of words that appeared to be getting personal.

My tone was more direct to try and drive home a point, not because I'm ticked off.

Does nothing about those two sentences not seem... odd to you?

No. Not at all. That's the point of the story, and one of the staples of my belief.

And that's probably one of the reasons we're missing (or perhaps mischaracterizing) each other's points.

The "lens" through which we read each other's posts is not shared.

[west3man]

Speaking as the senior member of the CBR Virgin Squad: yes, and very occaisionally yes.

There aren't many reasons to live a life of celibacy, but they do exist. (Mine, for what it's worth, is that I'm a gay Christian.)
If I were advising someone on lifelong celibacy, I would say three things:

1) Don't frame it in terms of "forever": that is dramatic and misleading. You don't really know what your life will be like next year, so let that go. Decide if you're going to be celibate this month, and go with that. Forever will take care of itself.

2) You probably won't be able to do it unless God calls you to it; and that is a fairly rare calling. But if you have that calling, do your best to honor it.

3) Life without sex is not as tragic as it looks. (At least, many of my sexually-active friends seem to consider it tragic: they have some muted expectation that I'll go around with my hand to my forehead, murmering, "Oh, the lost sex, the lost sex!" :) )

Once you're committed to celibacy, the whole thing just doesn't come up very often. No, I don't think I'll ever have sex. I don't think I'll ever be a billionaire rock star, either. And neither case bothers me, because I've adjusted my expectations to deal with it. If you're gonna do it (or not do it, in this case), that seems like as good a way as any.

I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean that it would probably be better for them to wait until marriage, but it would be hypocritical for you to tell them that, since you didn't (and wouldn't) wait yourself? Or do you mean something else?

re: "Quote:
-------------------------------

For me, I'd rather my (future-)kids wait until they're adults to have sex, but waiting until they're married? Enh. If a person never wants to get married, they may never have sex and I'm not telling my kids to do what I know DAMNED WELL I wouldn't do. "

I think it would be best for them to wait until they're adults. After that, it'd be best for them to wait until they're with someone they don't mind being tied to (via offspring) for life. Whether or not they actually marry that person DOES MATTER to me, but not as much as it does to some.

I've thought for some time now that it might be a good idea to experience relationships with different people (as a liklihood, as opposed to sabotaging one's own relationships), for a few reasons. One is to reach a level of relationship-maturity