[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 2hu / abdl / fur / newbrit / tk / trap / u / v9k ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Email
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Christchan is back up after maintenance! The flood errors should now be resolved. Thank you to everyone who submitted a bug report!

File: 595feee6d9d9686⋯.png (157.62 KB, 480x854, 240:427, Screenshot_2017-10-13-13-0….png)

a6b416 No.537601

Are the Orthodox really pro-masturbation or am I getting bamboozled/misunderstanding this guy's post?

7a48b5 No.537605

>>537601

masturbation involves lust, the orthodox church has always taught against it.


068b2b No.537606

Not at all. That guy is sinposting.

Condoms are allowed because they're indistinguishable from NFP, which is also allowed, although in both cases, the degree to which they (and all non-abortifacient contraception) are allowed will depend on the couple's particular situation. Wanting to avoid having children because you don't want the responsibility of being a parent is sinful, but wanting to avoid children for the moment because the situation is temporarily too difficult to risk having another child is not. Not all intercourse has to be purely for the sake of procreation - St John Chrysostom himself adviced that couples that come back from abstinance to focus on praying and fasting, should indulge in intercourse without intending to procreate, but rather purely for the unitive aspect.

Also, "no kiddy fiddler priests" is a lie. We most certainly do have such shitty clergy. But we do kick them out whenever that happens, and because the ecclesiastical court is distinct from the secular court, even if a priest is found innocent by the state, if the Church finds him guilty he'll be made to step down and be excommunicated anyway.

Finally, I'm not sure of what the point of ">Sunday" is.


a79ee2 No.537612

>>537606

We have plenty of issues, no matter the denomination.

Thanks for your humbleness and honesty, anon. I might be a Papist, but I'm not blind to our grave problems/ we got pozzed in the roots by Americanism and Consumerism, your Countries and Church have other issues to sort out; it saddens me when here we end up just attacking one another out of pride or wrong hatred…


24e407 No.537622

File: 80571f9c71ba952⋯.png (956.43 KB, 1440x1080, 4:3, [stares in latin].png)

Surely you know better than to use cuckchan.


a79ee2 No.537624

>>537622

I was on /pol/ for years, I remember when Wolfsheim was active and I often joined in to help…at the time I had good skills and knowledge of Christian apologetics. Now I go there and almost all I see are insults and prideful sense of superiority.


e52c7a No.537625

>>537601

What;s the catholic view on pleasure and unification in sex between a married couple?


068b2b No.537626

>>537612

I wish I were humble or honest, but thank you, Christanon. God bless you.

The biggest problems in Orthodoxy right now are phyletism (still an issue on the local level), nationalism (which turns Orthodoxy into a tool of culture, and is of course mostly a problem in historically Orthodox countries), and fake traditionalism (ie the "Catholics don't even have sacraments and are no different from Muslims" crowd). Meanwhile, Catholicism is plagued by liberalism, which I dare say is the sole problem within the Catholic Church today, but takes many many forms: crappy catechesis, liturgical horrors, charismatic communities, bishops teaching what is evidently heresy, people within the Church supporting politically liberal views and not getting immediately excommunicated, the Vatican shuffling pedo priests around to prevent a complete collapse of the Latin Church, and so on.

Truly, we need each other if we want to take a stand against the modern world's evils, and to fix our own problems as well.


73b568 No.537628

>>537606

>Finally, I'm not sure of what the point of ">Sunday" is.

Poster below was a 7th Day Adventist. Guess that was brought up beforehand.


55c582 No.537632

>>537601

Phoneposting locks you out of REAL understanding.


40bb67 No.537634

Modern Christianity is not same as the traditional Christianity. Frankly we should have keep the jews out of the banks when it was old days but we didn't. Jesus is right about the jews.


294c81 No.537636

It's a slippery slope since they already allow contraception and divorce up to 4 times.


068b2b No.537637

>>537636

And you guys allow NFP and infinite annulments. We can be two at playing that game.


294c81 No.537642

>>537637

>NFP

There's a difference between a man and his wife having sex during her natural period of infertility (with not other pregnancy preventives) and using birth control pills and condoms, as the EOC allows.

>infinite annulments

I mean that's wrong, you can only get married once with the Catholic Church. The Church allows annulments only during extreme cases to protect the Sacrament of Marriage.

http://www.stmarys-waco.org/documents/Grounds%20for%20Marriage%20Annulment%20in%20the%20Catholic%20Church.pdf

That's not the case for the EOC, like I said they allow divorce for petty reason up to 4 times.


bdbefc No.537644

>>537636

You can't get a divorce in my coptic church except for fornification. I don't know where did catholics & protestants bget that "you can get divorced in orthodoxy" from tbh


de1f85 No.537646

>>537625

sex is for procreation

the Church recognizes that also an unitive principle exists when talking about sex (inside a couple), and it's not something bad, but this unitive principle must always be subordinated to the procreative principle

also the two principles can't be separated

this why condoms are not acceptable for catholics


de1f85 No.537648

>>537637

>And you guys allow NFP

NFP is only for for serious reasons (and your spiritual father decides if it serious or not) and only temporary

NFP also can be used at most only to distantiate births.


e52c7a No.537649

>>537646

Pretty much what i read

>sex is for procreation

And unity and pleasure (in marriage)


068b2b No.537651

>>537642

>There's a difference between a man and his wife having sex during her natural period of infertility (with not other pregnancy preventives) and using birth control pills and condoms, as the EOC allows.

Abortifacient contraceptives are murder, they are not allowed…

What is the difference between contraception with NFP and contraception with a condom?

>I mean that's wrong, you can only get married once with the Catholic Church. The Church allows annulments only during extreme cases to protect the Sacrament of Marriage.

You get married an infinite number of times, just as long as you can get an annulment that says "nvm you weren't really married", which is pathetically easy nowadays.

>That's not the case for the EOC, like I said they allow divorce for petty reason up to 4 times.

Is your problem with divorce or with remarriage?

Because our Lord Himself allows divorce in cases of adultery. Or do you know better than the Lord and say adultery is a petty reason?

>>537648

>NFP is only for for serious reasons (and your spiritual father decides if it serious or not) and only temporary

NFP is done willy-nilly.

>NFP also can be used at most only to distantiate births.

Same for us. We just file non-abortifacient contraceptives under the same category as NFP.


de1f85 No.537653

>>537649

>And unity and pleasure (in marriage)

yes, and those intents for catholics must be subordinated to the procreative function


de1f85 No.537654

>>537651

>What is the difference between contraception with NFP

God planned that the woman has infertile times, so it's not against nature, differently from condoms

>NFP is done willy-nilly.

I don't know what that means, I'm not native speaker


2f037e No.537658

File: e8f85143a844582⋯.jpg (30.33 KB, 232x345, 232:345, e8f85143a844582c84ab21f0cd….jpg)

>>537625

It's great and a gift from God

if you don't misuse it that is.

If marriage is your vocation, I think it's your duty to procreate and properly raise (this part is very important) christian children who will carry the torch of God's will and make the world a better place.

But if you make more children than you can afford, or devote enough time and effort to, then it's beside the point. Quality > quantity

The unification/bonding/pleasure part is also important.

That's a Catholic view. If you want THE Catholic view, it's this

>2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153

>2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.154 "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."155

>2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

>When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156

>2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man's exalted vocation to parenthood."157

>2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:159

>Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

>2371 "Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man's eternal destiny."161

"sex is for the sole purpose of procreation" is a meme phrase and not fully true


9db572 No.537659

File: 4b1f592c19e83bc⋯.png (291.32 KB, 640x629, 640:629, Reddit is the culprit.png)

>>537624

>Now I go there and almost all I see are insults and prideful sense of superiority.

I think a lot changed when Trump came along. Before the US election I remember 4/pol/ to be more lighthearted with a variety of topics. Nowadays it's Trump worship, 'General' threads, and mostly politics; which is strange considering /pol/ stood for politically incorrect, not just politics and political views. I find nowadays that /christian/ reminds me of what /pol/ used to be when I used to go there regularly. At least this is literally a Christian board by name and purpose as opposed to /pol/.


068b2b No.537663

>>537654

>God planned that the woman has infertile times, so it's not against nature, differently from condoms

Why are condoms against nature but NFP is not? Both make use of using one's reasonment (whether by caculating a woman's cycle, or using latex to shape an object) to prevent insemination and so childbirth, with a generally good success rate. Or is there a real distinction between the female body's infertility and the use of a condom? In both cases, the artificial input of man is required - to use one's reasonment to have intercourse but at the right time, or to use one's reasonment to have intercourse but with an item of latex to catch the semen before insemination.

>I don't know what that means, I'm not native speaker

NFP is done by every married Catholic couple. Because it's going to be necessary to space out children depending on the situation, and a married couple isn't supposed to abstain all the time. Although honestly, even contraceptives (whether abortifacient or not) are used left and right by Catholic couples, but that's a discussion for another day…


a79ee2 No.537664

>>537659

I mean, I was a traditional conservative and we disagreed on many issues; but at least they didn't call "chucks" all those who disagreed with them…now they think they alone know the truth.


de1f85 No.537665

>>537663

>Why are condoms against nature but NFP is not?

I don't know, I know that it's what our Church teaches and I never examined in depth

to me it's enough that infertile times in the woman are objectively something planned by God

if in doubt it's better to remain on sure positions

>NFP is done by every married Catholic couple

only with a serious reason and temporary, if they do something different they are wrong

>and a married couple isn't supposed to abstain all the time.

no, I just say that everything must be subordinated to the procreative principle, as Casti Connubi says

"For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are SUBORDINATED to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved."

>even contraceptives (whether abortifacient or not) are used left and right by Catholic couples

they will answer to God for that, it's a mortal sin


de55c4 No.537667

>>537605

So if someone took a Viagra pill to get a boner, then is it okay to fap according to the Orthodox Church?


55c582 No.537669

File: 0e77a324f17fec9⋯.jpg (33.3 KB, 400x400, 1:1, 1469516068389.jpg)

>>537667

lets be honest here if someone came at me with that history I would probably be the first one to come with this story to myself, but lets ignore that, I would immediately note he took the Viagra pill because he wanted to reap the pleasure of the body in first place.


a79ee2 No.537672

>>537626

I agree with the issues in the RCC; I spoke with a few Orthodox Christians and they shared the same worries as you.

I am okay with loving your people, but yes: God should be above Nationalism


068b2b No.537673

>>537665

>I don't know, I know that it's what our Church teaches and I never examined in depth

>to me it's enough that infertile times in the woman are objectively something planned by God

>if in doubt it's better to remain on sure positions

Ah. I thought you were familiar with natural law theory, which is why I pressed the question. I'm sorry.

The biological interpretation of natural law theory is the Catholic Church's main philosophical argument against condoms, but the arguments of the Fathers was much more simple - abstaining from procreation is a grave sin, even in the case of NFP, because it's automatically indulging in passions and childbirth is the primary purpose of intercourse anyway. Or not. The Fathers don't speak unilaterally on this (St John Chrysostom was certainly not opposed to intercourse without procreation being part of the picture, and even St Paul says that couples must not abstain from each other for too long).

The overall conclusion of the Church is that specifically not wanting to have children is a grave sin (although it is possible for a married couple to live as brother and sister, but that's a story for another day). But a situation might make it necessary to space out childbirths, because having a child within a year would be too dangerous for the spiritual health of the couple and for the raising of the child. So NFP was allowed in those cases. Then we found out that not all contraceptives are abortifacient, and so non-abortifacient contraceptives were included in the same category as NFP, because in all cases they're the same thing: non-abortifacient contraception.

We don't have an issue with how Catholics do it as far as I know, although not seeing the use of condoms as a mortal sin would certainly help out in some African countries.

>>537667

Why would it be? Intercourse in a married relationship is good because it is unitive and because it can be procreative. Masturbation is done alone, that automatically makes it wrong.


068b2b No.537674

>>537673

Oh, and also, the Fathers often believed that the creation of life happened as soon as the moment of intercourse. Now that we know that the creation of life actually happens when the sperm and the egg merge, we can't really afford to say that the use of a condom is murderous anymore.


55c582 No.537675

File: 3d426562a891d7e⋯.jpg (527.91 KB, 2012x2048, 503:512, 1433197173645.jpg)

>>537673

>abstaining from procreation is a grave sin

But what if you're chaste(a virgin)?


de1f85 No.537677

>>537673

what is the difference between a condom and coitus interruptus? does the Orthodox Church allows the latter one too?

>>537675

I like that pic


068b2b No.537687

>>537675

I did mention that it is possible for a married couple to live like brother and sister, although in that case they must obviously abstain from all things passionate and lustful.

>>537677

Coitus interruptus destroys the unitive act, because the man isolates himself from the woman right in the middle of their act. Either you practice self-control and don't have intercourse, or have intercourse and appreciate it by giving yourself over to your partner, but coitus interruptus is half-assing it, so to speak. Furthermore, if the semen is going to be spilled on the body of the woman for instance, that's problematic - it's just enjoying lust, but in a way that's wrong, while using a condom is enjoying lust but while having vaginal intercourse. The moment the man pulls out and spills his seed on his wife, for instance, it ceases to be vaginal intercourse.


55c582 No.537693

>>537687

>I did mention that it is possible for a married couple to live like brother and sister

Wait, why did they submit to Marriage then? Its just generic chastity with a side of companionship. And yea, I know marriage is a sacrament, "but this I say by way of concession, not of command"(Corinthians 7:6. I think. Its definitely in Corinthians but it might not be 7:6)


068b2b No.537698

>>537693

>Wait, why did they submit to Marriage then? Its just generic chastity with a side of companionship.

Because the situation might change after marriage.

In the early Church, clergy were expected to cease intercourse with their wife after becoming ordained.

And what if a man or a woman feels called to monasticism, but is already married?

Furthermore, what if pregnancy is a risk that the couple does not want to take? For instance, if the woman has a disease that weakens her and would possibly kill her if she were to give birth. Even taking the risk of pregnancy, which is never absolutely null with non-abortifacient contraception, might be too much for the couple.

Marriage does not exist solely for the sexual aspect, you know. Woman was made to be her husband's helper, and man was given the authority to lead his wife. Even without sexuality, marriage is something special.


900c57 No.537732

File: 4f95e1c573c800a⋯.jpg (9.43 KB, 250x250, 1:1, 238255252.jpg)

>getting your religious information and advice from /pol/

>not taking everything there with a grain of salt until you research it




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 2hu / abdl / fur / newbrit / tk / trap / u / v9k ]