[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / doomer / fringe / islam / loomis / magali / random / s / tingles ]

/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.
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Voice recorder Show voice recorder

(the Stop button will be clickable 5 seconds after you press Record)
Options

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.


| Rules | Log | Tor | Wiki | Bunker |

File: 502673e14870d13⋯.png (290.32 KB, 1080x1328, 135:166, Screenshot_20200206-175954.png)

File: 78f8eb38edde8bd⋯.png (2.66 MB, 1080x1290, 36:43, Screenshot_20200206-180319.png)

File: a10e5182a2312f5⋯.png (705.93 KB, 1080x1218, 180:203, Screenshot_20200206-180353.png)

20160b  No.826886

How could I ever justify a want before my Lord? I am very attached to life lived alongside the virtues relative to this earth, including the desires of earthly prospering, marrying, procreating, having and defending a homestead, being about my people whom I miss so dearly in such a setting, especially with the world and how it is now.

Which is probably understandable, but also the desire to rebel against His commandments, by these earlier described ones.

How could I even look upon a beautiful woman hereabout where I live, or in a painting, or in thought, and not be struck with the greatest sadness over what has become of the world of them, and over my own denial into their world and the world of potential, or love between persons on earth, in favour of God? If we are called to love God before all, everyone, bar none, (Luke 14:26) how could desiring having a family ever be just? If we can help our sin at all, and truly will do anything for Him, how can we deny this notion? As a matter of fact, how could I deny any sacrifice inspired to me upon realizing it's possibility in my life, how could I deny such a thing?

If I am so flaming a horror of a sinner, how could I deny a single sacrifice before Christ, how could I ever, EVER want thus expect to fulfill it? And wanting it - righting the injustices committed against the family unit, providing that avenue of love and security and unglazed over humanity, that domestic engine of love which I saw insight in, those corners of that house in the light that noone seems to remember, the silent love, the dignified love, the uncompromising love, yet the love of man, as brought forth by the family. This is my whole life. But what is it before Christ? Are we not called to become new persons in him? In other words, how is it possible to justify NOT becoming a monastic?

I want to say my wants and longing is not rooted in evil - but of course it is! This is what every pagan in the world felt - how else could I differ from them in the matter. I realize this is a hard and special path a select few may be called towards, but let me put it another way, I fear I may be one of those few. Times are so late; my sins are so great, I am losing sight of the worldview I gained through my earlier life whereby the height of wholesome endeavour was the pursuit of this very thing, and I wonder, not whether it is right to seize it again, but whether even the thought is not sinful. Otherwise; how might romance live? Please help..

____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

56eb85  No.826893

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

bruh, you're clearly troubled and don't know if English is your first language but that is one melodramatic-sounding and painful few paras to read through, suggest you re-draft it for clarify. I think I get the gist though, and sounds like you're confused and upset thinking you need to renounce the world. You don't have any good reason to feel this way though.

Read the four loves by lewis or watch the doodles on youtube, leaving agape til the end. Creation was created good, the material aspect of the world is not inherently evil, desire itself (not talking about eros, just plain old desire at it's most basic) similarly is not inherently evil. Everything has it's time and it's place as allocated by God for a particular purpose.

Don't think of 'romance' as such, that's a modern concept (relatively speaking ) and, depending on what you mean by it, shouldn't be the lense through which you pre-occupy yourself with these quesitons https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2019/01/25/the-chivalric-rules-of-love/ . Instead, think on the questions of love through those as they're presented in the bible (which the four loves covers). https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9boiLqIabFjljx2sUeqOz_0QDlYL_Hoi

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

0879ab  No.826925

File: 3d0da8080ccef6c⋯.jpg (33.32 KB, 369x600, 123:200, adam and eve lempica.jpg)

>>826893

>Don't think of 'romance' as such, that's a modern concept (relatively speaking )

This. Romance isn't love. Romance is lust justified by emotion alone.

>If we are called to love God before all, everyone, bar none, (Luke 14:26) how could desiring having a family ever be just?

God commanded us to be fruitful and multiply in Genesis 1:28.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

892a01  No.826932

>>826925

>Romance is lust justified by emotion alone.

You are clearly not married

Read song of Solomon

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a0a32f  No.826946

File: 56b9d7aec8e0c59⋯.jpg (7.51 MB, 2314x2826, 1157:1413, francesca da rimini.jpg)

>>826932

You, like the OP, misunderstand what romance is.

I'll start from the beginning. The best definition I've read is from the Harvard Dictionary of Music:

>The word romantic derives from the romance [Fr. roman], a long narrative in prose or verse that arose in the Middle Ages and was the principal antecedent of the novel. Having no counterpart in Classical literature, the romance remained free of the limits and rules imposed on most literary genres with the revival of the Classical literary tradition in the Renaissance. Romantic thus came to signify freedom from the Classical tradition and, in its place, the uncontrolled play of the individual creative imagination, with resulting connotations of the highly idiosyncratic and even the fantastic.

Classicism, here, is the opposite of this. From the same source:

>In general usage, the terms classical and classic refer to (a) the Greco-Roman tradition and (b) such perceived characteristics of that tradition as poise, balance, proportion, simplicity, formal discipline and craftsmanship, and universal and objective (rather than idiosyncratic and subjective—i.e., "Romantic") expression. In addition, the terms classical and especially classic often refer to (c) a standard or model of excellence, one of enduring value.

Thus my earlier statement that romance is lust justified by emotion alone. It is not love. Stealing a wife from a husband, for example, could be easily claimed as romantic, but it is lust and not love. Love is excellent and lust is not.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

5faaad  No.826949

>>826946

>cherry picking from a music dictionary

Romance is attraction, especially with a chivalry connotation. It's related to love.

Romance is good. God created it. You are toeing the line of stoicism.

You should have romance with a suitor, fiance, and spouse. Courtship is romantic.

>Stealing a wife from a husband, for example, could be easily claimed as romantic

Stealing a purse could be called exciting. Is excitement wrong? Should I never be excited?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a0a32f  No.826952

>>826949

This is not cherrypicking; it's the root of the word and its meaning is beyond the art-historical context. Romance is resemblance to fantasy and has no relation to right or wrong in scripture.

>Romance is attraction, especially with a chivalry connotation. It's related to love.

Lust, too, is related to love, in that it's its most degenerate form.

>Stealing a purse could be called exciting. Is excitement wrong? Should I never be excited?

Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21, the Tenth Commandment:

>You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

"Your rights end where my feelings begin," the post.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

673ae3  No.826983

>>826946

>>826932

>>826949

>>826952

>>826893 here, this is why I caveated my caution of thinking of 'romance' in the context of love with 'depending on what you mean by it.'

>>826949

did you read/watch any of my links or read anything in my post? Why not talk of attraction using biblical language i.e. eros (sexual desire, longing) storge (affection) etc. rather than romance which we've already established is unbiblical.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

8be53c  No.826986

Romance is human courtship/coupling. It is the behavior inspired by the procreative instinct. Romance is neither good nor bad. It can be lustful or charitable. It can be geared towards mutual benefit, comfort, security, and reproduction, or it can be geared towards selfishness, fornication, etc. OP is right that stealing a wife from a husband could viewed as romantic, but so would that same wife remaining faithful. Romance is sneaking away from your family and fiance to have sex with a stranger in steerage, but it is also putting your wife on the life-boat while the ship goes down.

Romance is like eating. Eating can be used to celebrate a banquet with friends and to replenish the body, or it can be used to become a ravenous glutton. People eat because they are hungry, and people are hungry because they are either famished or gluttonous. People romance to either exalt another person and bring them joy or to seduce them.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

92fcf5  No.826996

>>826986

exactly

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

0879ab  No.827085

File: d94354a14a37c34⋯.jpg (134.03 KB, 1576x2536, 197:317, the sin.jpg)

>>826986

It probably won't surprise you to know that I don't agree with this at all. Romance, courtship, and attraction are all different things. Bluntly equating them is semantically dubious and morally dangerous.

I'll offer you a clear counterexample to your weak definition of romance: romantic nationalism, the root of so many evils of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Emotional appeals (as opposed to principled or scriptural appeals) were used by statesmen as the basis for executions, theft of property and land, idolatrous worship of people and places, and other obvious injustices and sins. It survives today in works like national anthems and words like "motherland" and "fatherland."

There's also (as obviated by the source of my definition) the Romantic period of art, which has little to do with human attraction and everything to do with trading principles for feelings.

>>826983

I hate to say it, but I think it's just us looking for justice in the Bible here. I haven't had to reach very far to find verses for the OP, so I suspect that the conversation staying within romance is because it's the only means to the OP's ends.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

f266d4  No.827092

Jesus said, "You can not enter the kingdom of heaven unless you are born from above."

In other words, you can not enter heaven until you are in a state of heaven ALREADY, by being reborn with the Spirit of Christ. Heaven is a state of being first. What use is going to heaven when your every action on earth said you didn't care a thing about it? Those who care about temporal things will still be haunted and tormented by the loss of them, after it's all taken away. There's a reason why Jesus instructed us to deny ourselves - HERE. NOW. Not tomorrow or only after you die a physical death. The Kingdom of God all starts now.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

81c00f  No.827105

>>826886

>the desire to rebel against His commandments, by these earlier described ones.

Your poetic language is confusing. What are you wanting to do which would contradict God's commandments? Are you saying that you think lust for your wife's body is in conflict with God's commandments? Catholics will not agree, but from the Protestant perspective, lust for your wife is the whole point of lust. Lust becomes sinful when it's directed outside of marriage. That is the nature of the corruption: something good has been taken and used in an evil way. If there were no lust in marriage, there would be very few children.

Please use more descriptive titles in the future.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

7bed6b  No.836737

>>826886

I know how you feel.

People in the thread are justifying "not being able" to be so extreme to keep living in the world, when we all know deep down it is an euphemism for not wishing to follow Christ's commands.

I don't wish to do what I know is God's will. I am a sinner, I am fully aware of it. I cannot forgive the debts of others, much less walk another mile. We are called to forgive the debts of others, but how would a tax collector like me do such a thing? Here I pray for mercy greater than what I am even willing to have done unto others…

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

fb233b  No.836787

>>826886

From what I can gleam from the post OP, you seem to believe that because God wants you to be absolutely obedient to him and because loving God above all would mean never walking away from a possible sacrifice you could make for him, you now feel that it is wrong for you to have a family.

Have you really understood what you're saying, OP? Jesus said to his disciples that they should go to make disciples of all nations. If what you say is true and all people should abandon having a family for the sake of God then what Christ requests is the death of all nations. Do you really think God would desire the death of nations rather than living, practising Christian nations? Does God desire that his people don't propagate themself?

The very first command God gave to Adam was to "go forth and multiply" and Adam, before the Fall, was perfect and thus, perfectly obedient, loving God above all. Yet he also loved Eve, just not as much as God. Was Adam already imperfect, then?

Consider the following from 1 Corinthians 7:

>Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.

>But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Paul could've given advice on how to become someone capable of living a consecrated life in the future but instead, Paul focuses on the here and now, on that there are those who are capable of such a life right now and that there are those who are not. Your mentality of resenting yourself for your earthly desires implies that, in your mind, you could be an ascetic monk if you wanted to, you just don't love God enough to do so. The reality is you're resenting yourself for not doing something you're incapable of. Or at least, something you're incapable of right now. I don't wish it on you but if you were to have a spouse, if all your children were to attain adulthood and then your spouse were to perish, as an aged widower, your loins should have settled down by then and so perhaps you could reconsider something like monasticism.

Heck, while some people are certain that they're called, I think a lot of people kind of spend time sitting on the fence about it before coming to a decision. I think monasteries allow people to give the monastic life a free trial to see how they feel about it. You could look one up and see what it's like.

It takes humility to accept that you may be called to relinquish your personal desires, that's true, but I think it also takes humility to accept that this is not your calling.

I think the issue may be that you see within yourself that you want to have a family for selfish reasons rather than for the sake of God and this is why you think it's wrong to want the things you want. The reality is, even if you abandoned your selfish desires in favour of how best to serve God, you'd most likely find that the best way to serve is precisely to pursue the things you deemed selfish. As I said though, the object of desire was never the issue, it was the intent. Your intent was to satisfy yourself originally whereas now it's to serve God.

Does serving God by having a family mean not trying so hard to be holy? While you yourself may glorify God less, you also propagate the faith to the next generation and beyond. You keep your nation Christian. That's a good thing. These are my thoughts.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

fc8553  No.838752

>>836787

Good post i like this post

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

686a14  No.838799

>>826886

I'd be surprised if anyone that replies to this post understands it. People are big on replying. understanding not so much.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e9136a  No.838847

M8, you can't justify anything before the Lord. You can only ask for mercy and favor. Favor means finding a underserved fondness, for the lack of a better word. And when someones has favor in your eyes, you do things to please them.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

ad01a1  No.838895

If we were not made to be fruitful we would just be souls

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Random][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / doomer / fringe / islam / loomis / magali / random / s / tingles ]