/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>706482

>and not wanting to admit that the church has been misguided in some of its teachings on sex in the past

As long as you believe this is a valid argument neither side here will find common ground.

But anyways.

What is the actual problem with having sex always be open to life? I don't understand your point with "obsessed with the physical nature" part of your post so I can't exactly figure it out.

>>706482

>Complete union of husband and wife for the purposes of procreation

>Mere mechanics

>>706482

Here's an old post by a Catholic NFP teacher, married, five children, who admits that the fiddly rules of Catholic sexual morality were actually a source of much stress and guilt for him and his wife.

It's also funny how the women responding to him in a finger-wagging fashion have dogs as avatars. They give off a vibe of "sexually frustrated ugly old wife". Are losers more moralistic than attractive people with healthy libidos?

I don't know. For all I know Catholicism may be right on this one. And yet wanting to have sex with your wife and not being able to because you already have three kids and it's "sinful" to ejaculate outside of her vagina and you will have to confess the sin to the priest in order to take Communion… sounds painful.

When I attend Mass as a visitor (I'm not Catholic) I see a lot of people lining up for Communion, and yet I don't remember ever seeing a family with numerous children at those Masses. And Brazilians are highly sexual. Quite suspicious, isn't it?

>>706482

Whoops, here is the post: https://www.christianforums.com/threads/my-nfp-rant.2386139/

>>706483

The point simply is, what's wrong with having sex with your wife for purely recreational reasons?

>>706500

Catholic laity are essentially uncatechized in many places, it seems.

>>706507

I think this is the wrong question to ask. I think it greatly devalues sex to call it "recreational", the way playing tennis or drinking beer is recreational. You know who performs sexual activity casually like playing tennis or drinking beer? Faggots. But what about having sex with your wife for "unitive" reasons? To strengthen the bond of marriage through passion for each other?

>>706518

First of all I'm not saying gay outside of marriage. Recreational was a bad word to use but I meant in a valid marriage is it wrong for a man to embrace his wife for the sake of love and not procreate?

>>706482

>Why is it that natural law mandates that every single sexual act be open to life?

Rome teaches this, not necessarily Scripture, which matter far more on these matters than Rome, Aquinas, Augustine, etc.

>Why this and not the Orthodox view that procreation is an essential purpose of marriage but that every act need not necessarily be open to life?

I'm not sure about the Orthodox view, but it should be clear from the Genesis onward, including Song of Songs, which does not reference procreation, that our sexual nature and the sexual act comes from begin the image of God first and foremost, not for a purpose of procreation as important as that is.

> I've asked a lot of priests and all I get is either confident hand waving about how "you just can't separate the two" or muttering about how "prophetic" Humanae Vitae was.

>Priests can only repeat ad verbatim ad naseum Catholic catechistics instead of the Bible, other theologians, etc.

I'm not surprised OP, you should seriously consider a different church that respects God's wisdom found in His Word, like Reformed Baptism.

>The idea that a husband and wife performing non-procreative acts on each other will send them to hell is simply laughable to me.

If God finds it laughable by adding the Song of Songs, then you should as well. Worse, these men, by preaching against the marriage is honorable to all and the martial bed that IS undefiled (not should be as Heb 13:4 is commonly translated), they teach doctrines of demons, see 1 Tim. 4:1-4.

> No amount of esoteric philosophizing and JP2 Theology of the Body can change the fact that this comes across as far too obsessed with the physical nature of the act itself and reduces it to its mere mechanics with little regard for the actual circumstances of the couple

See above about the image of God. A couple should focus on each other's pleasure and well-being because that's what each person in the Trinity does. The Trinitarian Person delights in the other, see for example the baptism of Christ where the Father says He is well-please in the Son or Prov. 8:30 as Wisdom might refer to the Son or the Spirit. Just as the delight of the Trinity figured in the world's creation so to does a couple delight, God willing, occasionally result in children.

>I want to believe in the doctrines of the church

Maybe God is giving you the hint your "church" (I'm assuming you are Catholic) is demonic with sexuality as well as more important matters and 'you need to flee ASAP.'

>A simple blanket ban rather than a more nuanced approach comes across as taking the easy way out and not wanting to admit that the church has been misguided in some of its teachings on sex in the past (e.g. Augustine and Jerome)

Oh boy, when researching sexuality and eschatology, I learned a lot on the church fathers and their views on sexuality. Sadly, the pagans and atheists reasonably make fun of us (though they themselves are evil) on this issue because these "fathers", right in many areas, were severely wrong when it came to marriage and sex, being influence by the sodomite Plato or the proto-rationalist Aristotle.

>thank you.

You're welcome! If this post disappears after you have read it, it's because mods are not too happy with my criticisms against them, but's that's another issue I hope can be settled soon.

OP, do you really think jacking off onto your wife's belly is good and christian?

>>706501

>>706500

That dude is not catholict AT ALL. He doesn't thinks like a catholic, he doesn't talk like a catholic, he doesn't act like a catholic. He NFP pharisee that got tired of it, that's all.

>>706530

>Fetlife.com

What the hell? I don't want to know what that is.

>Where does the focus on each other's pleasure stop? Anal? BDSM? Golden showers?

Well, first, excuse me for being frank discussing this, all the things you listed don't really provide pleasure, but arise from fetishistic nonsense or from deeper sins, as in the case of BDSM, that need to be addressed.

Second, while what I said may seem more liberal, by staying close to Scripture and with a bit common sense and philosophy (sola Scriptura =/= solo Scriptura as long as what we reason is controlled by Scripture above all), we can deduce what's not wise or wholesome versus what is wise, wholesome, or allowed.

For example, why use the anus for sex when its main purpose is to excrete toxic waste from the body? But by using the anus for his pleasure, the man is saying his connection with his wife is worth the excrement, with dead blood cells, undisgestible rotten food and deadly bacteria, that usually comes out instead of connecting in a place that naturally provides pleasure for both husband and wife and occasionally leads to life. We are not mix what is for life with what is for death and other such things, see Deut. 14:21c. And while God did create the digestive system and called "very good" the only rightful use of the bottom end is the latrine, and we must be careful with that, Deut 24:12-14.

The same principle applies to "golden shower" even if both male and female reproductive system shares similar space with the urinary system. Being urinated on doesn't even provide any kind of direct pleasure from tough and definitely from smell. What the hell? Why do crazy people find that erotic?

A similar process can theoretically apply to oral sex. I don't necessarily approve of it myself or find it appealing. I don't get it as it gives pleasure mostly to one person above another. Then again, Song of Songs, among some other OT passages, has euphemisms for oral sex, showing approval when both the groom and the bride give each oral sex. What do I know?

BDSM? Ditto. Don't call pain pleasure and pleasure pain. Re-arrange your views on submission. Etc.

>>706530

>>706551

Man … you people sure do devote a lot of time to the study of the anus.

>>706553

pointing out how unnatural anal sex is a sad necessity when millions are desensitized to sodomy

>>706527

This is all you need OP. Feser is really the guy for this topic. If you want a longer introduction to the topic you can read 'The Last Superstition' and then his book on Aquinas.

I was told Catholics can't sleep with their wife if she has conceived seed. Is this true?

>>706527

>I've never seen anyone explain how charting body temperature and cervical mucus thickness as in NFP is not a "contraceptive act" in totality.

It's about the means not the end.

It's like robing a bank to earn money or work honestly to make money. The end is the same, but the means are different.

By using NFP the couple is always open to a new child and during the times where you can't have sex, the couple practices abstinence which is another virtue of chastity, while a man that uses a condom has his mind set on not winnie the pooh to have a kid and he can do it everytime he wants either during ovulation or not.

NFP teaches man and women to look after each other and respect the dignity of their bodies, chastity and of the sexual act itself.

>>706482

>nitpicking the sexual life of married couples

just don't put it in her butt. how hard is that?

>Why is it that natural law mandates that every single sexual act be open to life?

Because end of sexual act is procreation as made by God. Anything that does not aim at this end is sinful because it's unnatural.

> What is it that makes each and every sexual act end with the husband finishing inside the wife?

Because end of sexual act is procreation as made by God. Anything that does not aim at this end is sinful because it's unnatural.

>Why this and not the Orthodox view that procreation is an essential purpose of marriage but that every act need not necessarily be open to life?

Because end of sexual act is procreation as made by God. Anything that does not aim at this end is sinful because it's unnatural.

>The idea that a husband and wife performing non-procreative acts on each other will send them to hell is simply laughable to me

You personal feeling have nothing to do with reality nor God will care about "but it was ok to me".

>physical nature of the act itself and reduces it to its mere mechanics with little regard for the actual circumstances of the couple.

Sexuality WAS, IS and always WILL BE physical. Sexuality does not exist in soul, it exist in body alone.

>I want to believe in the doctrines of the church, but this one I just find untenable

Then humble thyself and stop being essentially a protestant who wrongly thinks that his will trumps that of God.

>not wanting to admit that the church has been misguided in some of its teachings on sex in the past (e.g. Augustine and Jerome).

Not the Church, nor Augustine, nor Jerome were wrong but World and You are.

Stop being a faggot OP.

>>706665

>>Why this and not the Orthodox view that procreation is an essential purpose of marriage but that every act need not necessarily be open to life?

Wtf any orthodox here to tell me this is a meme? So contraception is OK? What the hell guys?

>>706544

He's a pharisee? Okay then.

What would a real Catholic's attitude toward this matter be, then?

>>706544

I mean, again, I guess "strict" Catholics are right. My libido is less aggressive when I'm healthy. There does seem to be something quite "disordered" about sex-obsession.

>>706568

Isn't it the case that sex has 2 purposes? Procreation and celebrating your marriage (or something like that. I'm bad with english semantics.)

>>706500

>I see a lot of people lining up for Communion, and yet I don't remember ever seeing a family with numerous children at those Masses

You've just met 90% of the "catholics" these days.

winnie the pooh sad

>>706772

yes, procreative and unitive. even if you are baron and can't have kids you can still have sex.

>>706500

>When I attend Mass as a visitor (I'm not Catholic) I see a lot of people lining up for Communion, and yet I don't remember ever seeing a family with numerous children at those Masses.

I remember someone mentioned this on r/catholicism and all the top comments were 'oh but I have SO many problems conceiving, you are so judgmental!!'.