Is the celibacy rule, for lack of a better term, pointless, in today's world?

[nobspeople]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pope-accepts ... 33983.html

Even though his actions were, ambiguous (his words) it's still an issue it seems - at least enough for resignation.

Is this celibacy antiquated and pointless today (or even originally)? Seems it's just another means of control - preventing humans from being humans as designed (for those who think they're designed) - and an attempt to 'force' focus on the church when it should be voluntary. Granted, no one is forced into the priesthood it seems - it's part of 'the game'. Even so, is this (and maybe some of priest's other) 'don't do's' things that need abolished? Or at least reviewed for relevance?

Aren't voluntary sacrifices better and more productive than forced sacrifices?
Or is there evidence to show forced sacrifices more beneficial than voluntary ones?

[1213]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pope-accepts ... 33983.html

Even though his actions were, ambiguous (his words) it's still an issue it seems - at least enough for resignation.

Is this celibacy antiquated and pointless today (or even originally)? ...

Bible says:

But the Spirit says expressly that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron; forbidding marriage and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with thanksgiving.
1 Tim. 4:1-4

Because of that, I think it is wrong to demand celibacy from anyone.

But, maybe it is still not pointless. I think it could be compared to fasting, which also is not necessary pointless. But, maybe person who chooses that should think what is the point of it, so that he doesn't do it pointlessly.

[JehovahsWitness]

Seems it's just another means of control - preventing humans from being humans as designed...

I do not believe a person stops being a real human if he or she adheres to the biblical standards when it comes to sexual conduct. Biblically, humans were not designed to have multiple sexual parents.

GENESIS 2: 23-24*

Then the man said: “This is at last bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh. This one will be called Woman because from man she was taken.” That is why a man will leave his father and his mother and he will stick to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

CELIBACY

The bible does not avocate lifelong celibacy as a rule. It is normal and healthy for children and young people that are not physically and emotionally mature to be celibate. Scripture certainly does not impose abstinence within marriage. If a person makes a personal choice to remain single and celibate, biblically this does not make them any less human or devalue them in any way. Unlike animals, humans do not have to be governed by their sexual impulses and can live happily and healthily in abstinence, especially if they choose to do so to better concentrate on their service to God.


JW





RELATED POSTS

Was sexual intercourse the "original sin"?
viewtopic.php?p=954188#p954188

Does the bible present sex as "distasteful" " immoral" or "reprehensible"?
viewtopic.php?p=1031631#p1031631

WHY does scripture prohibit sexual immorality?
viewtopic.php?p=1019649#p1019649

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

SEX, SIN and ...MARRIAGE

* NOTE :

Of course it is permissible to mention the bible in this sub-forum.

I am ONLY using the bible to show what the bible says and what Christianity say in line with subforum guidelines, not to prove that a statement or story is true. ​I am not presenting the bible as authorative or proof of truth and have no intention to add an argument to that end in this subforum See LINK for details: viewtopic.php?p=1058158#p1058158

[JoeyKnothead]

Is the celibacy rule, for lack of a better term, pointless, in today's world?

Pends on if one's only options're ugly, and ya ain't got no beer.

Or if the only options're std'd, then there ain't enough pretty, nor beer in the world to fix that.

Or if she's passed out. Unless there's a can wake her up clause. Pretty thing seems okay with it on her days off, but might kick like a mule otherwise. She's funny like that.

[Miles]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pope-accepts ... 33983.html

Even though his actions were, ambiguous (his words) it's still an issue it seems - at least enough for resignation.

Is this celibacy antiquated and pointless today (or even originally)?

"Ridiculous" would be my opinion. As it's been exposed, celibacy serves as a cover for sexual abusers, and no doubt always has. That, and I suppose to elevate the moral image of the clergy above that of common folk. "Sex is a dirty No, No, and should only be practiced to produce babies."

Seems it's just another means of control - preventing humans from being humans as designed (for those who think they're designed) - and an attempt to 'force' focus on the church when it should be voluntary. Granted, no one is forced into the priesthood it seems - it's part of 'the game'. Even so, is this (and maybe some of priest's other) 'don't do's' things that need abolished? Or at least reviewed for relevance?

As it seems to have turned out it's been a sanctuary for Catholic homosexuals and pedophiles (I'm not aware of any other major western religion in which the clergy practices celibacy). Anyone with such urges could, and probably still can, easily find refuge in the Church.

Aren't voluntary sacrifices better and more productive than forced sacrifices?
Or is there evidence to show forced sacrifices more beneficial than voluntary ones?

During wartime forced conscription into the armed services was a necessity, which was more beneficial than leaving manpower staffing up to volunteers.


.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #3]

I do not believe a person stops being a real human if he or she adheres to the biblical standards when it comes to sexual conduct.

What is a 'real human'? Seems, by your context, that this is something that's not following biblical standards. Exactly, what is a 'real human' and how does that correlate to the term 'human', as you used it here?

Biblically, humans were not designed to have multiple sexual parents.

Uh...huh?

The bible does not avocate lifelong celibacy as a rule.

Then the rule needs abolished.

[JehovahsWitness]

What is a 'real human'?

Someone you described below.

preventing humans from being humans as designed...

[nobspeople]

What is a 'real human'?

Someone you described below.

preventing humans from being humans as designed...

A real human is one being prevented from being a human as designed?

[JehovahsWitness]

What is a 'real human'?

Someone you described below.

preventing humans from being humans as designed...

A real human is one being prevented from being a human as designed?

Isn't "a human as designed" what you said? When I said "real human" that is what Inwas refering to a {to quote you} "human as designed"{end quote}

What is a 'real human'?

... humans as designed...

JW

[nobspeople]

What is a 'real human'?

Someone you described below.

preventing humans from being humans as designed...

A real human is one being prevented from being a human as designed?

Isn't "a human as designed" what you said? When I said "real human" that is what Inwas refering to a {to quote you} "human as designed"{end quote}

What is a 'real human'?

... humans as designed...

JW

Then why change up the terminology? What's the agenda in doing so? To confound the issue? Please explain.