[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 70 KB, 266x450, 53560.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19490668 No.19490668 [Reply] [Original]

"I’m fairly harsh on the Fathers for the idealization of angelic celibacy. But as I reflect upon it, I can kind of get where they were coming from. They lived in a decaying, overly sexualized debauched culture of the late Roman Empire (nominally Christian or not). The appeal to monasteries fairly obvious: faced with starving poverty, unfulfilled sexuality, and lack or order, monasteries offered a stable alternative. Does that justify later monastic trends? Of course not, but it’s worth remembering. If the Fathers were over-reacting to what is below, then I can understand, even if I do not approve."

https://bayouhuguenot.wordpress.com/2014/11/06/i-can-now-sort-of-understand-the-patristic-angelic-celibacy-thing/

>> No.19491005
File: 465 KB, 1500x1500, 1630306830928.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19491005

>>19490668
>I’m fairly harsh on the Fathers

>> No.19491039

>>19490668
>If the Fathers were over-reacting to what is below, then I can understand, even if I do not approve

Was Jesus over-reacting in choosing celibacy? Was Paul? Does 1 Corinthians 7 justify later monastic trends?

>It is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of sexual immoralities, each man is to have his own wife...
>But this I say by way of concession, not of command.
>For I would that all men were even as I myself.
1 Corinthians 7:1-2, 6-7

>> No.19491056

>>19491039

The Bible does not condemn sex between husband and wife. If it did, Jesus would have been sinful in marrying Mary. The Bible does not prohibit sex before marriage, but it warns that sex outside marriage is dangerous. Jesus was reacting against the false traditions of his day, not against sex itself. Paul also warns against sex outside of marriage, but was celibate himself.

Celibacy for Christians? Celibacy is not a virtue. It is a virtue for Jesus, who is God, but not for humans. Celibacy is an unnatural state for humans. We are to be fruitful and multiply.

Jesus' celibacy is a mystery. It was not a life of celibacy before his marriage to Mary. He was about 33 years old when he was baptized, and he had been married for at least 10 years. It is unclear how many children he had. He had a family.

>> No.19491073

>>19491039
Christ became incarnate for the redemption of man. He is not required to obey the commandments.

>And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

>Does 1 Corinthians 7 justify later monastic trends?
There is a difference between a commandment and an opinion.

Also Paul:
>Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

>> No.19491162

>>19491056
>If it did, Jesus would have been sinful in marrying Mary.

Not Biblical and I don't think there's a reputable source of Jesus ever having married, let alone to (I'm assuming you're referring to) Magdalene.

>> No.19491225

>>19491073
>There is a difference between a commandment and an opinion

I don't dispute your post. My point is simply that Paul's remarks, and the example of Jesus, establish celibacy as a legitimate Christian option. In turn, those things make the monastic choice a legitimate Christian option -- and indeed it justifies later monastic trends. Which certainly does not mean marriage is not honorable; it does not remotely mean that; and inevitably, few, very few, will choose the poverty and obedience and celibacy of the monastery. With that said, however, bringing Jesus and Paul into the discussion is, at least from a Christian perspective, a necessary corrective to the remarks of 'bayou huguenot' in the OP.

>> No.19491573

>>19490668
The effects of celibacy on the clergy can clearly be seen. It creates a culture of hipocrisy, one that goes against the nature of man.

>> No.19491601

>>19491162
nah, his mum

>> No.19491704

>>19490668
Imagine being a Protestant. Lmao

>> No.19492030
File: 77 KB, 900x900, 1u1qdg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19492030

>>19491056
>>19491601
Stop this blasphemy. Jesus did not do his mom.

>> No.19493052

>>19490668
>Does that justify later monastic trends? Of course not, but it’s worth remembering. If the Fathers were over-reacting to what is below, then I can understand, even if I do not approve.
Congratulations. You are a Muslim.

>> No.19494471

call no man father

>> No.19494841

>>19494471
Then what do you call your father?

>> No.19495644

>>19494841
daddy

>> No.19496950

protestants are dumb

>> No.19496967

>>19490668
seething protie simp coomer

>> No.19496971

>>19490668
The desert coomers were so constantly aroused they had to go into self-isolation. Apparently this was still not good enough as many monks were tormented by "demons"

>> No.19497054

>>19491056
>Jesus would have been sinful in marrying Mary
fuck off Dan Brown schizo, this is a serious discussion.