OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 30, 2014, 12:03:12 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Autoeroticism and the Fathers  (Read 6411 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Constantinos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 3



« on: May 27, 2006, 04:05:20 PM »

Apologies if this is in the wrong forum. Newbie and all.

As a recent intellectual convert to Eastern Orthodoxy (should become a catechumen soon), I am deeply interested in the teaching of the Church on various matters. One issue upon which I have not found much reliable information is masturbation. The sources I have read typically agree it is regarded as sin within the Orthodox Church, and provide decent intellectual reasoning thereupon, but I am all too well aware that for every argument there is a counter. I am uneasy about accepting a vague, "well, everybody says so" approach. I am looking for something authoritative and concrete.

Therefore: What did the Early Church Fathers have to say about masturbation? Since I am still relatively new to the Tradition business, quotes would be greatly appreciated. I am looking for specifics on the topic, not more general commentaries on the issue of human sexuality e.g. Chrysotom.

As an aside, since I believe in healthy dissent, I am particularly interested in hearing about any writers in the early Church who did not believe masturbation was sin, and their reasoning therefor.

Thanks in advance for the responses.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2006, 04:07:51 PM by Constantinos » Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,077


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #1 on: May 27, 2006, 04:20:34 PM »

Just to put you at ease: correct forum, and a well-stated question.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Constantinos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 3



« Reply #2 on: May 27, 2006, 04:24:35 PM »

Thank you for the kind assurances. They are much appreciated. Now I can await a cogent response without having to worry that I'll end up getting banned for my very first post.  Wink
Logged
BasilCan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 204


« Reply #3 on: May 27, 2006, 08:11:36 PM »

Based upon my copy of the Rudder and my copy of the ancient questions used in the Greek Orthodox Church at confession. Masterbation, sodomy, sex with animals, homosexual sex, sex outside marriage - all considered a sin.

As regards to masterbation today, I heard a priest say (off the record) since we don't get married at 16 now like they did in ancient days, he'd rather a man masterbate than commit fornication. However, if it becomes an all consuming habit (like eating too much, alcholism, etc) this is a problem. Also, if one can refrain from the act, all the better.

Basil
Logged
erracht
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 313


OC.net


« Reply #4 on: May 31, 2006, 07:21:56 AM »

Autoeroticism or masturbation is a sin, together with other extramarital sexual practices.

Here is an article which explains this in detail. I include this with one disclaimer - the website orthodoxinfo.com is old-calendarist and I do not endorse it or recommend it as a whole - but the article purports to describe two supernatural experiences proving the gravity of the sin.
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/selfabuse.aspx
Logged

NULL
Constantinos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 3



« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2006, 11:49:09 AM »

Yes, I've come across that one. It's just about the only web page out there that deals with the subject. However intriguing its reasoning, I'm hesitatant to accept its conclusions carte blanche without additional support. Call it the vestigal Protestant in me. Tongue
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,456


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 31, 2006, 01:26:57 PM »

Quote
Here is an article which explains this in detail. I include this with one disclaimer - the website orthodoxinfo.com is old-calendarist and I do not endorse it or recommend it as a whole - but the article purports to describe two supernatural experiences proving the gravity of the sin.
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/selfabuse.aspx

The website has in the past two years removed almost all pro-Old Calendarist documents and the head of the site now attends a SCOBA parish, although I will refrain from mentioning which one out of respect for his privacy.  Needless to say, from my point of view, that is quite unfortunate, but for others it is a welcome move.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,960


black metal cat


« Reply #7 on: December 04, 2006, 03:59:02 AM »

Quote
Therefore: What did the Early Church Fathers have to say about masturbation?

I don't have quotes, but I can throw my 2 cents in with an overview and some book suggestions. If you search for "contraception" on this forum you'll probably find a good bit of interesting reading which deal with your question (albeit in an indirect way). Here are three things that I'm pretty sure that most of the early fathers held to: 1) They considered lust bad (including lust for your wife, though I'm pretty sure many of them drew a distinction between lust and attraction, where the latter was acceptable); 2) They felt that sexual activity had to have some justification (procreation being the most common, then avoiding fornication, building a bond, producing a family, etc.); and 3) they felt that sexual activity could not exclude the possibility for procreation (with a few exceptions like the infertile).

In addition to accepting that attraction to the opposite sex was fine, other fathers (Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, etc.) accepted that pleasure was also a natural human characteristics, and thus saw no problem if it was experienced within the proper context. The proper context, however, was narrowly defined: male/female sex, with the male in the dominant position, and the fronts of the couple facing each other. I've gotten flamed for saying that before. Sorry, you may not like it, but just because you don't find something that particular in a Homily by Chrysostom, that was the way things were, and you will find it in the penitential literature of both the east and west up through the 20th century. That doesn't mean that all Christians went by that teaching, of course, but that was the teaching nonetheless.

Maturbation would have been one of the least acceptable expressions of sexuality, because: 1) there would be no chance for procreation, 2) it indulged (rather than avoided) fornication, and 3) it usually indulges lustful thoughts. Not a few other people equated it with abortion, and considered it the "destruction of a soul," giving penances that could last for years. Obviously mutual masturbation was also not allowed, for some of the above reasons. From what I've read, young people were generally let off easy for the first few times, though if it was a habit, or you were married, the penances could get pretty difficult/lengthy.

For the most broad overview of sexuality in the early Church, the best book would probably be John T. Noonan's Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists. The book does have some flaws, but just about anyone who writes about sexuality in the early Church quotes this book. Noonan's book includes some early canonical/penitential information, though that is mostly from the west. A better book for this information would be Sex and Society In the World of the Orthodox Slavs, 900-1700 by Eve Levin. There are some issues with this book as well, but it is one of the most researched books that I've read, and gives a good idea of what the general feelings of the Slavic Orthodox Churches were for everything from homosexuality to masturbation to playing footsies (yes, believe it or not, in at least one area there was a penance given if a single person confessed playing footsies in a flirtatious way).

From a more traditional Orthodox/Catholic perspective, the only one I'd recommend is the book Women and Men in the Early Church: The Full Views of St. John Chrysostom by David Ford. Sometimes I think he has rose-colored glasses on, and the book comes off more like an apologetic than a scholarly work (and in fact a good portion of the book is spent dealing with various criticisms of the fathers by feminists and such), but he still does the best job that I've seen in presenting the Orthodox view of sexuality.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2006, 04:02:19 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #8 on: December 04, 2006, 05:07:02 AM »

In addition to accepting that attraction to the opposite sex was fine, other fathers (Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, etc.) accepted that pleasure was also a natural human characteristics, and thus saw no problem if it was experienced within the proper context. The proper context, however, was narrowly defined: male/female sex, with the male in the dominant position, and the fronts of the couple facing each other.

If you're going to make remarks like this, I think you'd better be prepared to back them up at least a little bit. 

Quote
Sorry, you may not like it, but just because you don't find something that particular in a Homily by Chrysostom, that was the way things were

See above.  What other evidence do you have that would back this up, if not the writings of the fathers themselves?  In any event, I personally find the fathers somewhat puritanical, if not outright comdemnatory at times in their attitudes regarding sex.  After all, most of them were confirmed celibates.  Was it St. John Chrysostom who wrote a nun and as part of his letter reminded her that "God forgave people for getting married"?(!)

Quote
... and you will find it in the penitential literature of both the east and west up through the 20th century.

What the West says isn't relevant in this context. 

Quote
Maturbation would have been one of the least acceptable expressions of sexuality, because: 1) there would be no chance for procreation, 2) it indulged (rather than avoided) fornication, and 3) it usually indulges lustful thoughts. Not a few other people equated it with abortion, and considered it the "destruction of a soul," giving penances that could last for years. Obviously mutual masturbation was also not allowed, for some of the above reasons.

Granted.  However, I think it's time for GIC to weigh in with his "every sperm is sacred" song Wink and an explanation about how the fathers were simply using the extent of available knowledge of the time, which  assumed that the entire seed for the baby was basically engendered by the male, the female being a simple receptacle. 

Quote
For the most broad overview of sexuality in the early Church, the best book would probably be John T. Noonan's Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists. The book does have some flaws, but just about anyone who writes about sexuality in the early Church quotes this book. Noonan's book includes some early canonical/penitential information, though that is mostly from the west.

If it has a really Western slant, then again it must not be that relevant to the Orthodox experience, no matter who uses it as a source.  This might cause me to question even more the earlier assertions you make about sex when it comes to the experience of the Eastern Church.  Maybe not, though.  Convince me. 

Quote
A better book for this information would be Sex and Society In the World of the Orthodox Slavs, 900-1700 by Eve Levin. There are some issues with this book as well, but it is one of the most researched books that I've read, and gives a good idea of what the general feelings of the Slavic Orthodox Churches were for everything from homosexuality to masturbation to playing footsies (yes, believe it or not, in at least one area there was a penance given if a single person confessed playing footsies in a flirtatious way).

Certainly has nothing to do with the request for "patristic" references in the earlier question. 

Quote
From a more traditional Orthodox/Catholic perspective, the only one I'd recommend is the book Women and Men in the Early Church: The Full Views of St. John Chrysostom by David Ford. Sometimes I think he has rose-colored glasses on, and the book comes off more like an apologetic than a scholarly work (and in fact a good portion of the book is spent dealing with various criticisms of the fathers by feminists and such), but he still does the best job that I've seen in presenting the Orthodox view of sexuality.

I should look at this.  Thanks.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2006, 05:10:23 AM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,960


black metal cat


« Reply #9 on: December 04, 2006, 05:53:39 AM »

Pravoslavbob

Quote
If you're going to make remarks like this, I think you'd better be prepared to back them up at least a little bit.

Well, let me be frank (It's 4am, what else can I be? Smiley ), I'm not really going to try and provide systematic evidence. I do think you have a right to see what types of things led me to the conclusions I posted, though, so here's one example from Levin's book...

Quote
The three requirements for licit sex were procreation, vaginal penetration, and the missionary position. Anything else consistuted "a sacrifice of semen to the Devil without purpose," "sodomy," or illicit fornication (references given).

The "correct" position for sexual intercourse placed the woman supine and the man astride her. The term in Church Slavonic for this position was "on the horse" (na kone), emphasizing the male's dominant role over the female. (a discussion of the term and references given). The Russians particularly opposed the reversal of the "proper" positions of husband and wife, imposing penances ranging from three to ten years. The authors of the penitentials labeled this reversed position as a "great sin." (references give, and some comments, including the following: "Only one text, Almazov, 3:150, lists a minor penance for this sin: 40 days with 60 prostrations a day. Certain Western canonists also believed that intercourse with the woman on top was the most sinful posture.)

...Coitus from behind also violated canon law. Although the woman still maintained her subordinate position in dorsal sex, there were other grounds for objection. This posture was described as "cattle-like" (skotsko), as much a pejorative as a description. (reference). In addition, Slavic hierarchs objected to rear penetration on the grounds that the woman behaved "as a man" (muzsko), that is, mimicking the position of the passive male in homosexual intercourse (references). Regulations on intercourse from behind did not always distinguish between vaginal and anal penetration, but simply described rear entry as "against nature" (references). Certain provisions referred unambiguously to anal intercourse (zadnij proxod or afedron) (references). In some cases, the two were specifically equated and were given the same penance, an indication that the source of the objection lay in the configuration of the male and female rather than the orifice use or the pontential for conception (refences and comments on western canonists).

Texts of penitential rules and canon law record a wide range of penances for sexual intercourse from behind, from a minimum of six hundred prostrations without a fast or exclusion from communion to thirty years exclusion from the Church. (references) Provisions that seemingly pertained to vaginal penetration (sozadi, "from behind") tended to have lower penances, usually a fast of forty days with a limited number of prostrations per day (references). Regulations for heterosexual anal intercourse usually recommended longer penances, often three of four years fasting and a large number of prostrations daily (references, and a note that "Even the strictest of Slavic Orthodox penalties were mild in comparison with those imposed in Renaissance Venice; there the official penalty for marital anal intercourse was death").

Levin then goes on a bit longer, discussing what factors pastors might take into consideration when giving a penance, such as how often it was done, whether the wife gave her consent, whether it was in Lent, how old the couple was, etc. She also says:

Quote
Open-mouthed kissing was deemed inappropriate, even as foreplay. The shorter penance, consisting of a dry fast of twelve days, indicates that the offense was minor (references)... If a man inserted his finger, hand, or foot into his wife's vagina, he was to undergo a penance of three weeks of fasting. A similar penance was mandated if he used a piece of clothing. Fellatio and cunnilingus, which only occasional Russian codes mentioned, were more serious, calling for penances of two or three years of fasting (references). These penances are analogous to those for major sins, such as adultery and incest with an in-law. No ecclesiastical source provides a rationale for condemning these practices so severely. - Levin, Sex and Society, pp. 172-175

Quote
Granted.  However, I think it's time for GIC to weigh in with his "every sperm is sacred" song  and an explanation about how the fathers were simply using the extent of available knowledge of the time, which  assumed that the entire seed for the baby was basically engendered by the male, the female being a simple receptacle.

Well, I would agree with you. I mean, I certainly wouldn't want to follow the Fathers on the issue of sexuality, and I think it's a good example of how morality can change over time. 

Quote
If it has a really Western slant, then again it must not be that relevant to the Orthodox experience, no matter who uses it as a source.  This might cause me to question even more the earlier assertions you make about sex when it comes to the experience of the Eastern Church.  Maybe not, though.  Convince me.

Well, Noonan certainly does have a western bias. In fact, he even has a secular bias (e.g., rather than asking whether the doctrines came from oral tradition, he concludes that they came from Stoicism). His value is not so much in his commentary as in his quotes, though. True, he spends much more time on western Fathers than Eastern ones, but he gives you tons of leads, as it were, for further exploration. Fwiw, though it's probably expensive/unavailable on Amazon, I found a copy in my local public library a few years back.

Quote
Certainly has nothing to do with the request for "patristic" references in the earlier question.

True. But, while the writings of the early Church Fathers might be of the most importance, I would assume that someone who was Orthodox would be interested in what later Orthodox had to say as well. If not, you can ignore that book. Er, well I hope you don't ignore the book as quoted above, since I spent the time to type it out, lol. What I quoted is basically what I've seen elsewhere, just in less detail. This isn't exactly the type of stuff people want to hear.

Justin
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,960


black metal cat


« Reply #10 on: December 04, 2006, 08:36:29 AM »

PS. I realise that the Levin thing doesn't exactly qualify as something from the early Church, but I posted it for a few reasons. First, because when I sold my Orthodox books a couple months back, I sold pretty much everything (including Noonan and Ford). I just kept the Levin book because I wanted to pull some quotes out of it before getting rid of it. Second, because it was right next to me, and I didn't want to search my hard drive for the notepad file with quotes from Noonan (and I doubt any of them would be a "smoking gun" anyway). And third, as I said I've seen the same type of stuff in the early Church, albeit much more scattered; I mean, do you think that multiple local Orthodox Churches just came up with this type of stuff on their own, apart from the earlier traditions? I really should look for a book that does what Levin's book does (systematically details everything), only for the early Church. That'd probably be an interesting read.
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #11 on: December 04, 2006, 10:20:51 AM »

You know, the ad hominem is essentially the submarine of rhetoric and debate. By this I mean, when used skillfully it can tear the heart and soul out of an entire fleet of well reasoned and well argued ideas; but when used poorly, it is a sitting duck, to be neutralized by the enemy airpower of ridicule before even finding the enemy fleet of reason.

Accordingly, Asteriktos, this is where I would customarily accuse you of Judaizing the Church in a not-so-subtle but very round about way. But as I'm sure that you and I have both learned long ago that patristics and canon law can easily be manipulated to support any posistion you wish and because you're not a very religious person (of course, neither are most Jews, so perhaps I could have went with accusing you of Judaizing and then cite your conversion to atheism/agnosticism as proof Grin...(though I still don't understand how you can be an atheist and agnostic, sounds comprable to being a Christian atheist) I'll simply go with this rebuttal:

Clearly you've learned enough about the posistions of our Church in order that you may manipulate and falsely present them to advance your ends. And being that you're an agnostic/atheist, clearly those ends are to present Christianity in a negative light that others may find your position more inviting. Wink

(This is where I would then get out my copy of Love, Sexuality and the Sacrament of Marriage
by John Chryssavgis and provide lots of wonderful quotes about how highly the fathers (especially those with big well recognized names) respected sexuality and then present it in a divine light, and then swing around through the back door (perhaps a bad choice of words considering the subject matter Cheesy) and dismiss your arguments as being contrary to the spirit of the teachings of these really well known fathers. But, alas, I'm on the road and my book is at home, and I'm far too lazy to take the time to look up the appropriate proof texts online Grin)
« Last Edit: December 04, 2006, 10:24:52 AM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #12 on: December 04, 2006, 10:23:17 AM »

Granted.  However, I think it's time for GIC to weigh in with his "every sperm is sacred" song Wink and an explanation about how the fathers were simply using the extent of available knowledge of the time, which  assumed that the entire seed for the baby was basically engendered by the male, the female being a simple receptacle. 

Oh, how I would love to, that song cracks me up every time I watch the movie. Of course, Asteriktos already knows better...he's just here to stir the pot Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,960


black metal cat


« Reply #13 on: December 04, 2006, 11:12:12 AM »

Quote
Clearly you've learned enough about the posistions of our Church in order that you may manipulate and falsely present them to advance your ends.

Well sure I could. Many Protestants could do the same with the Bible. All it takes is fanatical devotion, no girlfriend, and a lot of time on your hands. Of course, you would have a hard time proving that I would use whatever knowledge I've gained deceptively to present a false case. Shortly before I took a break from the site this summer, I had spent a few dozen hours compiling patristic quotes for some function or other (alas, the site went down and that was never gotten to, and I'm not sure Anastasios didn't delete them after our little argument, lol). Did I do so to secretly sow seeds of doubt or negativity? Mwahaha! You can judge if and when they ever get posted, if they exist Grin But the point is, I am much more interested in an intellectually honest and balanced view of the Fathers than a deceptive one. Of course, I am biased. But I can still claim to be sincere. The great Costanza opined: "It's not a lie if you believe it."

Quote
And being that you're an agnostic/atheist, clearly those ends are to present Christianity in a negative light that others may find your position more inviting.

Ahh, but it is my position that the truth is negative enough. I don't need to lie about what the Old Testament says, or what this or that Church Father says. You would admit just as quickly as I would that they said some silly things and had some unacceptable ideas, so don't try to imply that I'm just twisting things. Smiley I just happen to point out the things that you aren't likely to hear in your typical Orthodox work.

Quote
(This is where I would then get out my copy of Love, Sexuality and the Sacrament of Marriage by John Chryssavgis and provide lots of wonderful quotes about how highly the fathers (especially those with big well recognized names) respected sexuality and then present it in a divine light, and then swing around through the back door (perhaps a bad choice of words considering the subject matter ) and dismiss your arguments as being contrary to the spirit of the teachings of these really well known fathers.

Lol, in other words you would do the same thing that you accuse me of; the same thing that 90% of Orthodox books on sexuality do; namely, distort what the Fathers say to give a one-sided view. It's not my fault that your Church Fathers were so strict. Heck, both Augustine and Jerome admitted that their thoughts on sexuality were poorly received and hardly ever followed. But I assume that Christians would want to know what their Church teaches, not what Christians throughout the ages thought they could get away with.

The thing about the ad hominem is, it only works if either the audience or the intended target get caught up in it enough to allow the focus of the discussion to be changed. I guess you've succeeded (though I've learnt to duck your agnostic/atheist jabs)...  Cool  Anyway, people can read the material available, and I hope they do if their interested in the subject.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2006, 11:15:50 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,456


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 04, 2006, 11:15:15 AM »

Quote
I had spent a few dozen hours compiling patristic quotes for some function or other (alas, the site went down and that was never gotten to, and I'm not sure Anastasios didn't delete them after our little argument, lol).

I still have them, and have just not gotten to posting them with the current front page lag in being updated.  And I am sorry for my part in our argument this summer.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #15 on: December 04, 2006, 11:53:05 AM »

Well sure I could. Many Protestants could do the same with the Bible. All it takes is fanatical devotion, no girlfriend, and a lot of time on your hands. Of course, you would have a hard time proving that I would use whatever knowledge I've gained deceptively to present a false case.

Proof? Who needs proof? In the court of public opinion accusations are held in the same esteem as proof.

Quote
Shortly before I took a break from the site this summer, I had spent a few dozen hours compiling patristic quotes for some function or other (alas, the site went down and that was never gotten to, and I'm not sure Anastasios didn't delete them after our little argument, lol). Did I do so to secretly sow seeds of doubt or negativity? Mwahaha! You can judge if and when they ever get posted, if they exist Grin But the point is, I am much more interested in an intellectually honest and balanced view of the Fathers than a deceptive one. Of course, I am biased. But I can still claim to be sincere. The great Costanza opined: "It's not a lie if you believe it."

Hmmm, perhaps it would be better that such so-called 'research' is supressed. Let us not forget what we were taught by the Great Napoleon (well, let our enemies forget the Art of War he practiced, but in any case...), 'History is a lie agreed upon.' Wink

Quote
Ahh, but it is my position that the truth is negative enough. I don't need to lie about what the Old Testament says, or what this or that Church Father says. You would admit just as quickly as I would that they said some silly things and had some unacceptable ideas, so don't try to imply that I'm just twisting things. Smiley I just happen to point out the things that you aren't likely to hear in your typical Orthodox work.

To quote on of history's greatest masters of this art we are now discussing:
'If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.' -- Joseph Goebbels

He goes on to say, 'The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.'

Thus I suggest that any of these historical lies you claim to be so-called 'truths' be supressed for the well-being of the state...er, I mean Church. Wink

Quote
Lol, in other words you would do the same thing that you accuse me of; the same thing that 90% of Orthodox books on sexuality do; namely, distort what the Fathers say to give a one-sided view. It's not my fault that your Church Fathers were so strict. Heck, both Augustine and Jerome admitted that their thoughts on sexuality were poorly received and hardly ever followed. But I assume that Christians would want to know what their Church teaches, not what Christians throughout the ages thought they could get away with.

Of course, see Goebbels above...what else would I do? I can't think of the exact quote off the top of my head, but I believe it was Livy in his History of Rome addressed the reason that he presented the mythical story of the Founding of Rome as fact, and the reason was essentially that the purpose of history is to edify those who read it, thus the story was presented as fact for the edification of the Romans. The logical corollary to this is that unedifying history should not be presented, or at least presented in such a way that it comes across as edifying.

Quote
The thing about the ad hominem is, it only works if either the audience or the intended target get caught up in it enough to allow the focus of the discussion to be changed. I guess you've succeeded (though I've learnt to duck your agnostic/atheist jabs)...  Cool  Anyway, people can read the material available, and I hope they do if their interested in the subject.

The mob is run by emotion, not intellect, the great masses of people can always be sufficiently caught up in the emotion to neutralize the effect of reason. Of course, that's not what I've done here, I've just changed the subject Grin
« Last Edit: December 04, 2006, 11:53:31 AM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,960


black metal cat


« Reply #16 on: October 27, 2008, 08:51:41 PM »

Since this thread has been recently linked to, let me just take the time to apologize for taking the thread off course. The subject of the OP deserves attention all it's own, and I think I veered off course in my above posts.
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
William
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Time-wasting self-embarrassing anti-Christian hater
Posts: 4,351



« Reply #17 on: March 29, 2011, 07:46:48 PM »

Well, let me be frank (It's 4am, what else can I be? Smiley ), I'm not really going to try and provide systematic evidence. I do think you have a right to see what types of things led me to the conclusions I posted, though, so here's one example from Levin's book...

Quote
The three requirements for licit sex were procreation, vaginal penetration, and the missionary position. Anything else consistuted "a sacrifice of semen to the Devil without purpose," "sodomy," or illicit fornication (references given).

The "correct" position for sexual intercourse placed the woman supine and the man astride her. The term in Church Slavonic for this position was "on the horse" (na kone), emphasizing the male's dominant role over the female. (a discussion of the term and references given). The Russians particularly opposed the reversal of the "proper" positions of husband and wife, imposing penances ranging from three to ten years. The authors of the penitentials labeled this reversed position as a "great sin." (references give, and some comments, including the following: "Only one text, Almazov, 3:150, lists a minor penance for this sin: 40 days with 60 prostrations a day. Certain Western canonists also believed that intercourse with the woman on top was the most sinful posture.)

...Coitus from behind also violated canon law. Although the woman still maintained her subordinate position in dorsal sex, there were other grounds for objection. This posture was described as "cattle-like" (skotsko), as much a pejorative as a description. (reference). In addition, Slavic hierarchs objected to rear penetration on the grounds that the woman behaved "as a man" (muzsko), that is, mimicking the position of the passive male in homosexual intercourse (references). Regulations on intercourse from behind did not always distinguish between vaginal and anal penetration, but simply described rear entry as "against nature" (references). Certain provisions referred unambiguously to anal intercourse (zadnij proxod or afedron) (references). In some cases, the two were specifically equated and were given the same penance, an indication that the source of the objection lay in the configuration of the male and female rather than the orifice use or the pontential for conception (refences and comments on western canonists).

Texts of penitential rules and canon law record a wide range of penances for sexual intercourse from behind, from a minimum of six hundred prostrations without a fast or exclusion from communion to thirty years exclusion from the Church. (references) Provisions that seemingly pertained to vaginal penetration (sozadi, "from behind") tended to have lower penances, usually a fast of forty days with a limited number of prostrations per day (references). Regulations for heterosexual anal intercourse usually recommended longer penances, often three of four years fasting and a large number of prostrations daily (references, and a note that "Even the strictest of Slavic Orthodox penalties were mild in comparison with those imposed in Renaissance Venice; there the official penalty for marital anal intercourse was death").

Levin then goes on a bit longer, discussing what factors pastors might take into consideration when giving a penance, such as how often it was done, whether the wife gave her consent, whether it was in Lent, how old the couple was, etc. She also says:

Quote
Open-mouthed kissing was deemed inappropriate, even as foreplay. The shorter penance, consisting of a dry fast of twelve days, indicates that the offense was minor (references)... If a man inserted his finger, hand, or foot into his wife's vagina, he was to undergo a penance of three weeks of fasting. A similar penance was mandated if he used a piece of clothing. Fellatio and cunnilingus, which only occasional Russian codes mentioned, were more serious, calling for penances of two or three years of fasting (references). These penances are analogous to those for major sins, such as adultery and incest with an in-law. No ecclesiastical source provides a rationale for condemning these practices so severely. - Levin, Sex and Society, pp. 172-175
Would said canons still carry any weight? Or have they been relaxed for economy's sake?
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,815



« Reply #18 on: March 29, 2011, 08:31:44 PM »

Well, let me be frank (It's 4am, what else can I be? Smiley ), I'm not really going to try and provide systematic evidence. I do think you have a right to see what types of things led me to the conclusions I posted, though, so here's one example from Levin's book...

Quote
The three requirements for licit sex were procreation, vaginal penetration, and the missionary position. Anything else consistuted "a sacrifice of semen to the Devil without purpose," "sodomy," or illicit fornication (references given).

The "correct" position for sexual intercourse placed the woman supine and the man astride her. The term in Church Slavonic for this position was "on the horse" (na kone), emphasizing the male's dominant role over the female. (a discussion of the term and references given). The Russians particularly opposed the reversal of the "proper" positions of husband and wife, imposing penances ranging from three to ten years. The authors of the penitentials labeled this reversed position as a "great sin." (references give, and some comments, including the following: "Only one text, Almazov, 3:150, lists a minor penance for this sin: 40 days with 60 prostrations a day. Certain Western canonists also believed that intercourse with the woman on top was the most sinful posture.)

...Coitus from behind also violated canon law. Although the woman still maintained her subordinate position in dorsal sex, there were other grounds for objection. This posture was described as "cattle-like" (skotsko), as much a pejorative as a description. (reference). In addition, Slavic hierarchs objected to rear penetration on the grounds that the woman behaved "as a man" (muzsko), that is, mimicking the position of the passive male in homosexual intercourse (references). Regulations on intercourse from behind did not always distinguish between vaginal and anal penetration, but simply described rear entry as "against nature" (references). Certain provisions referred unambiguously to anal intercourse (zadnij proxod or afedron) (references). In some cases, the two were specifically equated and were given the same penance, an indication that the source of the objection lay in the configuration of the male and female rather than the orifice use or the pontential for conception (refences and comments on western canonists).

Texts of penitential rules and canon law record a wide range of penances for sexual intercourse from behind, from a minimum of six hundred prostrations without a fast or exclusion from communion to thirty years exclusion from the Church. (references) Provisions that seemingly pertained to vaginal penetration (sozadi, "from behind") tended to have lower penances, usually a fast of forty days with a limited number of prostrations per day (references). Regulations for heterosexual anal intercourse usually recommended longer penances, often three of four years fasting and a large number of prostrations daily (references, and a note that "Even the strictest of Slavic Orthodox penalties were mild in comparison with those imposed in Renaissance Venice; there the official penalty for marital anal intercourse was death").

Levin then goes on a bit longer, discussing what factors pastors might take into consideration when giving a penance, such as how often it was done, whether the wife gave her consent, whether it was in Lent, how old the couple was, etc. She also says:

Quote
Open-mouthed kissing was deemed inappropriate, even as foreplay. The shorter penance, consisting of a dry fast of twelve days, indicates that the offense was minor (references)... If a man inserted his finger, hand, or foot into his wife's vagina, he was to undergo a penance of three weeks of fasting. A similar penance was mandated if he used a piece of clothing. Fellatio and cunnilingus, which only occasional Russian codes mentioned, were more serious, calling for penances of two or three years of fasting (references). These penances are analogous to those for major sins, such as adultery and incest with an in-law. No ecclesiastical source provides a rationale for condemning these practices so severely. - Levin, Sex and Society, pp. 172-175
Would said canons still carry any weight? Or have they been relaxed for economy's sake?
They were of local provenance and import, and not set in stone for all time.  Though there was some cross fertilization (ironic term), and their producers took them to represent the Tradition as they understood it, they never had dogmatic nor ecumenical status.

There is a collection of canons of EP St. John the Faster which deals a LOT on these issues (and other, less obtuse ones) which, although included in the Pedalion, were not accepted by any ecumenical authority.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
OtherguyLB
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic, but lover of Theology and Church History.
Jurisdiction: Under Myself
Posts: 87


« Reply #19 on: March 30, 2011, 12:52:45 AM »

I looked through the topic and didn't find any convincing answers.

What I think of this is the following. I have good knowledge of Church Fathers and scriptures, as well as of society.

1. It is a bad behavior in the eyes of God. You can call it a sin, although there is no specific commandment on this.

2. People don't get married at 14-16, so it's quite hard for random individual to suppress sexual urges. And if someone doesn't find suitable partner till 25, it's(abstinence) actually bad for physiological and psychological aspects of a person. Not including special cases like monks or priests.

3. This doesn't mean masturbation is not grave sin in all cases. Lusting on woman(not wife) for a married man is same as committing adultery as Jesus said. Jesus talked about married man during the sermon on the mount.

4. Depends on the act itself, on what person lusts during the process. Auto eroticism on wife, who is temporarily away, isn't a grave sin. And lusting on random(many) beautiful woman/man who passes by is grave sin, but when someone has sincere(marriage) intentions, love and etc. this isn't grave sin.

In overall, in XXI century, when most of "Christians"(they aren't) say: "Come on, it's XXI century, sex is fine outside marriage", I think moderate auto eroticism isn't a grave sin.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2011, 12:58:35 AM by OtherguyLB » Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #20 on: March 30, 2011, 10:36:21 AM »

Have there been any recent Orthodox writings on the health-related aspects of ejaculation and how that relates to single men? This seems to be an aspect that isn't covered much, whereas most of the focus is on "lust" and controlling our passions.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,815



« Reply #21 on: March 30, 2011, 11:05:19 AM »

Have there been any recent Orthodox writings on the health-related aspects of ejaculation and how that relates to single men? This seems to be an aspect that isn't covered much, whereas most of the focus is on "lust" and controlling our passions.

LOL. No. In the link in post 4:
Quote
The concerns of even so ostensibly liberated a figure as Sigmund Freud (at least with regard to his thoughts on human sexuality) about the negative psychic effects of self-abuse have been tossed aside as symptomatic of the superstitious and medieval attitudes of antiquated cranks.
Why I am laughing is that I doubt that the author would otherwise have any praise for Freud, and a great deal of condemnation. How convenient.

Btw, part of that health-related aspects includes fertility: studies have shown that it boosts fertility after leaving it on the shelf for a while to clear it out first.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #22 on: March 30, 2011, 04:53:48 PM »

Masturbation and its role in prostate health and relief of prostatitis is a matter of medical controversy and more often than not medical folklore. It seems that some men do find relief while other find it can aggravate their condition, if done to excess. Even the causes and conditions of prostatitis are not really known, but much good work has been in the area in the last decade or so. Not unsurprisingly there definitely seems to be a psycho-somatic element. True bacteria infection is rare and prostatitis does not necessarily coincide strongly with an enlarged prostate, elevated BPH count, or age (although the latter certainly is associated with prostate cancer).

Lust (I have ialmisry's definition of lust here in mind: using someone else as an instrument for masturbation, if I can paraphrase) and masturbation do not have to coincide, no matter how much they typically might.

If any men or women for that matter ("pelvic pain syndrome" seems to have possible similar causes and conditions), would like more infos, post.

I've had "prostatitis " and an enlarged prostate since about the age of 16.

FWIW.

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,918


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #23 on: March 30, 2011, 05:20:25 PM »

Hey, everyone needs a hobby:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkklW7VEBHA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXNXlEERkXc
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,815



« Reply #24 on: March 30, 2011, 05:49:16 PM »

I'm afraid to find out what's on the youtube.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #25 on: March 30, 2011, 07:10:36 PM »

The discussion on the RC POV on this was moved to the appropriate section. The Faith Issues board is only for debating the Orthodox Christian POV.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,34841.0.html
« Last Edit: March 30, 2011, 07:33:42 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
William
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Time-wasting self-embarrassing anti-Christian hater
Posts: 4,351



« Reply #26 on: February 29, 2012, 05:59:34 PM »

Have there been any recent Orthodox writings on the health-related aspects of ejaculation and how that relates to single men? This seems to be an aspect that isn't covered much, whereas most of the focus is on "lust" and controlling our passions.

Bump.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,450



« Reply #27 on: February 29, 2012, 06:10:28 PM »

Have there been any recent Orthodox writings on the health-related aspects of ejaculation and how that relates to single men? This seems to be an aspect that isn't covered much, whereas most of the focus is on "lust" and controlling our passions.

Bump.

Wow.  A six year old wanking thread! Didn't we just recently beat this issue to death on another thread?
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
William
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Time-wasting self-embarrassing anti-Christian hater
Posts: 4,351



« Reply #28 on: February 29, 2012, 06:11:30 PM »

Have there been any recent Orthodox writings on the health-related aspects of ejaculation and how that relates to single men? This seems to be an aspect that isn't covered much, whereas most of the focus is on "lust" and controlling our passions.

Bump.

Wow.  A six year old wanking thread! Didn't we just recently beat this issue to death on another thread?

Did you? I didn't see it. Was it about prostate health?
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,450



« Reply #29 on: February 29, 2012, 06:19:01 PM »

Have there been any recent Orthodox writings on the health-related aspects of ejaculation and how that relates to single men? This seems to be an aspect that isn't covered much, whereas most of the focus is on "lust" and controlling our passions.

Bump.

Wow.  A six year old wanking thread! Didn't we just recently beat this issue to death on another thread?

Did you? I didn't see it. Was it about prostate health?

No, it was about someone having a problem with stopping.  I will see if I can find it.  I am sure it was just last year, and in between the kidding, there was some pretty good discussion.  Try searching the site with the key word "masturbate".  I am sure that word was all over that thread.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
William
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Time-wasting self-embarrassing anti-Christian hater
Posts: 4,351



« Reply #30 on: February 29, 2012, 06:21:51 PM »

Okay, thanks, but I'm really more interested in medical aspects of masturbation than pastoral responses to it at the moment.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,450



« Reply #31 on: February 29, 2012, 06:22:43 PM »

I just did the above search and a lot of stuff came up.  The topic has been heavily discussed.  I think that all aspect were discussed at one time or another.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
augustin717
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,634



« Reply #32 on: February 29, 2012, 06:27:26 PM »

It's an over-blown issue in the church tradition, imo. I can never stop laughing when I think that in the old guides for confession masturbation is referred  to as "sin with the devil". I once, still very young, confessed to "sinning with the devil" to a monk. He gave me a heavy penance. Now, of course, I know better than this bs.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #33 on: February 29, 2012, 06:48:06 PM »

I will be bring my doctor's note about medical masturbation to my Priest this evening.

William, the truth is that it is a wash. The infos are out there if you want them, but most of the stuff either folklore, even when from a doctor's mouth, or extrapolations from meta-analysis that has the relevancy of a Chinese fortune cookie. 
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #34 on: February 29, 2012, 06:51:11 PM »

infos

Is this at all becoming common or being used outside of orthonormity? 
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #35 on: February 29, 2012, 06:59:28 PM »

infos

Is this at all becoming common or being used outside of orthonormity? 

It's internetz.

Did I post about this once?

Oh yes:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,41567.msg678464.html#msg678464
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #36 on: February 29, 2012, 07:00:55 PM »

infos

Is this at all becoming common or being used outside of orthonormity? 

And it is "common" German.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #37 on: February 29, 2012, 07:02:34 PM »

Interesting as hearing about advices, informations and newses makes me feel like I'm talking to one of my students.  If you start making potato and grape uncountable I'm going to go mad.  
Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,685


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #38 on: February 29, 2012, 07:23:09 PM »

Would said canons still carry any weight? Or have they been relaxed for economy's sake?

Canons are probably the best evidence that the OP will find, however, it is also fair to mention that no Canon law applies unless your Bishop prescribes it to you. My Priest said that Canons are kind of like medicine and medical diets; you should not follow them unless your doctor prescribes them to you lest you make your health even worse in the process. Most Bishops have not really prescribed any of the stricter Canons about sexuality in recent times as far as I could tell. Probably because most of the sexual Canons came from combating paganism which was usually linked with sexual practices at the time. However, since paganism is not really an issue anymore, the Canons are a bit obsolete.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,918


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #39 on: February 29, 2012, 07:34:58 PM »

Here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSHehWPGttI&feature=endscreen&NR=1
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #40 on: February 29, 2012, 07:37:43 PM »

Okay, thanks, but I'm really more interested in medical aspects of masturbation than pastoral responses to it at the moment.

This is but one thing that is supported by modern society to "prove" the old repressive way of the past is in fact beneficial and preferable.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
IXOYE
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 663



« Reply #41 on: February 29, 2012, 08:51:52 PM »

Father Paisios of Mt. Athos:

“Elder, they used to tell us that sex is a good thing and the more often one does it the better, they also said that those who don’t do it develop psychological problems; that one, when he is young, should do it 23 times a day, to be able in his old age to do it once.”

“What is this, my child?  Who says this?  My, my!  A foreign doctor came here, who goes to worldwide conferences etc., and he was saying that continence is best for the body.  Sperm is very strengthening.  We can tell when young men have lots of relationships from the fact that if they break a bone, they have no marrow, it’s become water.”
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,815



« Reply #42 on: March 01, 2012, 12:21:05 AM »

Have there been any recent Orthodox writings on the health-related aspects of ejaculation and how that relates to single men? This seems to be an aspect that isn't covered much, whereas most of the focus is on "lust" and controlling our passions.

Bump.

Wow.  A six year old wanking thread! Didn't we just recently beat this issue to death on another thread?
Interesting choice of words.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,815



« Reply #43 on: March 01, 2012, 12:21:05 AM »

Father Paisios of Mt. Athos:

“Elder, they used to tell us that sex is a good thing and the more often one does it the better, they also said that those who don’t do it develop psychological problems; that one, when he is young, should do it 23 times a day, to be able in his old age to do it once.”

“What is this, my child?  Who says this?  My, my!  A foreign doctor came here, who goes to worldwide conferences etc., and he was saying that continence is best for the body.  Sperm is very strengthening.  We can tell when young men have lots of relationships from the fact that if they break a bone, they have no marrow, it’s become water.”

Unfortunately, it seems that Fr. Paisios isn't up on the latest on biology:sperm has nothing to do with marrow, as was anciently thought, nor has any strengthening power, and doesn't last, whether it is expelled or not (in the latter case actually, over time, causing problems being reabsorbed into the rest of the body).  Whether abstinence or ejaculation is healthier should have nothing to do with the question of the monastic profession.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,793



« Reply #44 on: March 01, 2012, 06:18:29 AM »

He gave me a heavy penance.

I must admit that I'm a little suprised that there still are clergy who actually give any penance.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2012, 06:19:06 AM by Alpo » Logged

Tags: sin masturbation autoeroticism 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.185 seconds with 72 queries.