/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Good morning, Op! I see another of the incessant attacks on The Catholic Church here in /christian/.

Would you care to elaborate a bit on what you're talking about?

Because even the protestants have to admit that the Bible addresses the virtue of celibacy, forbids adultery and sodomy and how Jesus disliked divorce.

>>827608

>I see another of the incessant attacks on The Catholic Church here in /christian/

You can ask him to argue further without the victim narrative

He's obviously speaking in reference to the differences of opinion between roman catholics and the rest of the Christian world. The rejection of sexuality as a pleasurable gift and instead as exclusively a procreative act of obligation, and even a shameful one.

It's a simple argument. The Roman Catholic view of sexuality is based on philosophical presuppositions from stoicism, not Biblical exegesis.

Look at the doctrines of the perpetual virginity of Mary, the forbidding of non-abortive contraception, the forbidding of non-procreative sexual activity.

Look at the culture of sexuality as inherently profane, rather than only a temptation to be reserved for the marriage bed.

even secular wikipedia sees the connection

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism

>The Fathers of the Church regarded Stoicism as a "pagan philosophy";

>Middle and Roman Stoics taught that sex is just within marriage, for unitive and procreative purposes only.[51][52] This teaching is accepted by the Catholic Church to this day.[53]

>inb4 "onanism"

Onan spilled his seed when he had explicit instruction to inseminate his brother's widow. He was killed because of disobedience, not the act of non-procreative intercourse.

This argument is like saying sailing the opposite direction than you first intended is sin, because Jonah did it and God sent a storm.

>>827614

>The Roman Catholic view of sexuality is based on philosophical presuppositions from stoicism, not Biblical exegesis

This power of yours to read the minds of long dead Church doctors and to call them with certainty to be liars is very amazing, Southern Baptist anon.

Since you can even read the minds of the dead, I shall retire from the game as I'm sure you've already detected my lies and sin and have dismissed me to hell.

>>827622

I am not purporting to know the mind of anyone. Not an argument.

>>827608

None of that is rooted in Stoicism although I admit that there is some commonality with Stoicism on those points. Roman Catholic beliefs specifically about things like contraception, the idea that marriage is only about procreation, is rooted in Stoicism and their concepts of virtue and natural living. The Bible emphasizes sexual intercourse not as something necessarily about procreation, although this is a result of it, but rather about the unity of men and women so that they may become "one flesh." Further, Paul emphasizes that Christian marriage is about controlling our desires rather than simply procreation alone. Why do you think the Eastern tradition has different ideas regarding marriage? Roman Catholics spaz about the Orthodox innovating or become more liberalized even though it is really they who have innovated. Latin ignorance about Eastern theology is rampant. Maybe they should take a look at Chrysostom for once. Don't think I am necessarily condemning Stoicism. I think there are many great and useful aspects of that philosophy that can be utilized in the Christian religion and have been. But Roman Catholics miss the point about Biblical and early Church teachings on sexuality and then they have the audacity to be so condescending to other Christians about being "da TROO cheerch". They can't see past themselves sometimes. They'll quote the Father's completely out of context and make it seem like somehow they are the victors here. This, among other things, has lead to a wide variety of misinterpretations on their part, such as the story of Onan's seed.

>>827608

>Because even the protestants have to admit that the Bible addresses the virtue of celibacy, forbids adultery and sodomy and how Jesus disliked divorce.

Protestant here. Agreed. Or at least, I think I'm a Protestant. I actually love the rest of what Christ commands, and don't prop up "Sola Fide" at the expense of everything.

So… perhaps not Protestant at all.

>>827647

>don't prop up "Sola Fide" at the expense of everything.

That's called not being a catholic strawman of a Protestant

>>827649

I don't know what your referencing. I'm just sounding off about my own feelings.

I think most Protestants, deep inside, feel like me and recognize this. You have the Spirit of Christ, just as I do, and he's urging you to live up to these commands, just as much as any Catholic or Orthodox. All of our day to day lives of walking with Christ is similar, because we all share the Spirit of Christ Only Protestants do this in spite of garbage theology handed down to us from Reformed hallmarks (like Sola Fide).

>>827608

>Complains about RCC being attacked

>Attacks Protestants

Poetry.

Stoicism is right about plenty of stuff, read it. Its a good man made attempt at truth.

No problem at all with having intersecting ideas with them. If its true its true regardless of who wrote it.

I didnt know there were different views on sexuality between Christian denoms besides the priest marriage subject.

Literal Christians defending masturbation itt………… there are things that are so pathetic and blatantly sinful that you dont need the bible to describe them for you. Well, taking into account people's weakness for lust sins i guess it did needed to have it described.

Also in Onan's story, God could have zapped him for both reasons.

>>827658

>Literal Christians defending masturbation itt

Where?

>>827659

Normally the Onan story is used as verse against masturbation, the 3rd poster argues that Onan was zapped only due to refusing to impregnate his dead brother's wife with no relation to the spilling of the seed in the ground.

So i suppose he is implying that the bible doesnt directly forbid masturbation.

>>827669

You are understandably mistaken.

I wrote in explicit defense of non-procreative intercourse.

Stoics being based:

"Men who are not wantons or immoral are bound to consider sexual intercourse justified only when it occurs in marriage and is indulged in for the purpose of begetting children, since that is lawful, but unjust and unlawful when it is mere pleasure-seeking, even in marriage. 3But of all sexual relations those involving adultery are most unlawful, and no more tolerable are those of men with men, because it is a monstrous thing and contrary to nature."

https://sites.google.com/site/thestoiclife/the_teachers/musonius-rufus/lectures/12

So these pagans are saying sodomy is monstrous and contrary to nature, did Catholics stole it from them too?

No, its common sense.

Curiously the modern stoics(its getting quite fashionable nowadays) completely ignore these teachings on sexuality. Cucked xxi century stoicism, like everything else in our decaying western world.

>>827674

>>827674

sorry then.

>>827685

no worries

Not here to argue, but I want to say this board and the discussions are great and we should welcome it

>>827607

Hang on, Eastern Orthodoxy/the eastern side of preschism Roman catholicism also have the same/somewhat similar views on sex though. What do you say to that?

also, sauce needed

>>827607

Stoics sound like bitter old men. All they needed was to get laid.

>>827735

begone, scandalizer

>>827614

There is nothing whatsoever in RCC canon that forbids the participants of a valid sexual act from enjoying it. You are speaking on the basis of cultural hearsay rather than any doctrinal reality. There is no "forbidding of non-procreative sexual activity"; Catholicism has never been against having sex during pregnancy or when one member of the couple is infertile or post-menopausal. We also have a whole encyclical about young fertile couples being able to use NFP if they can't afford more children.

It is true that the Church asks that we keep in mind the nature and purpose of the act so that we do not become consumed by the passions and begin to do perverse things (though the Church does not go so far as to label any particular act between a husband and wife to be sinful so long as contraceptives are not involved). But apart from that, I would consider it somewhat the reverse of what you say. It is more wrong for a Catholic not to take joy in the act of sex, for properly understood, sex is the image of the union between Christ and the Church. >>827614

>>827675

What 'law" did/do stoics appeal to in their writings and philosophy?

>>827948

>>827948

No laws, they follow reason and life 'according to nature' and strive to attain virtue.

Which if you are honest enough leads you to Christian aligned morals.

>>827622

Are you implying anon isn't a person?

>>827943

I agree with this Anon. As far as I know for the RCC sex is a reproductive act, of course, but also a sign of the love between a man and a woman. There's no shame at all about having sex as long as it isn't sinful.

The wife of a friend of mine had a very difficult time giving birth their child and the doctors told her she shouldn't have anymore or she would surely die, so he started to asks priests about what they could do and in such cases NFP is also allowed (as long as it doesn't involve contraceptives, of course).

By the way, and forgive me for being blunt, but you seem knowledgeable. Somewhere I read that for the Catholic Church it's imperative that the two spouses are looking to each other, so positions that don't allow that are forbidden, even if the sperm is released inside her vagina. Is that true?

No.

It gets so old when protestants say things that aren't true about Catholicism.

>>830001

You can ask him to argue further without the victim narrative

>>830006

>muh ad hom.

Op didn't make an argument, he made a statement.

Arguments, as taught by Sister Miriam Joseph, are like this.

Objective fact. Objective fact, Objective fact.

tie objective facts together with logic.

Then we sit back and challenge objective facts with other facts, or question the logic.

Nope. What Op did is make a baseless statement. Everywhere I've seen in the Catechism, the Catholic teaching on sex is based on the Biblical teaching of Jesus and the Apostles to be single, Or married and faithful to one wife.

The Saint Thomas Aquintus then expounds on the teachings of Jesus not to even THINK about adultery (also covered in the 9th Commandment not to covet your neighbor's wife) and, with the argument that assisting in others committing sin is also a sin, argues that porn, masturbation, ect are also sins.

Nope. Op has no argument. Your argument is a logical fallacy called an "ad hom" or "argument against the man" with an implicit "fallacy fallacy" i.e. Op's statement is correct because you accuse me of a "victim narrative"

It gets old, these protestant sins against reason.

>YoU kNOw WHo elSe BELiEveD iN ChAsTIty???

>Da pOgaNs!