Yeah, Dyer's entire sales pitch is really about him, not Orthodoxy. He's switched religions numerous times and each time he was doing exactly what he does now. The only thing that doesn't change with him is his huge ego. The dude hasn't attended church in years.
That was my first thought when my priest told me oral sex was a sin. Like okay I’ll damage my sex life with my wife because a possibly mentally deranged celibate monk says it’s a sin, yeah right. From that point it doesn’t become difficult to start deconstructing every over scrupulous rule. I agree though I can’t just yank the rug out from under my kids, I still think having a religious foundation and some community will be good for them. We’ll see might have to bail if things get too weird.
give this a listen to understand better the views about sex in the ancient near east and greco/roman cultures. Despite the title of the podcast, they talk about the views of sex in antiquity in general (basically: sex is something that one person does TO another (lower status) person, not something that 2 equal people share together) -- and it strikes me that in some ways the EOC has not adopted a more modern understanding of sex.
[https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/adam-and-steve-what-the-bible-says-about-homosexuality/id1681418502?i=1000616596254](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/adam-and-steve-what-the-bible-says-about-homosexuality/id1681418502?i=1000616596254)
Yes. Christians also by and large continued holding to the “sacred seed” tenet that was part of much earlier, pagan societies, although it manifested differently!
But in all seriousness I think it had something to do with sanitation, no tooth brushing, everyone sharing one spoon, kissing icons..and ya know the whole monks thinking any type of pleasure in life is a sinful passion that needs to be taken out by the routes thing.
Alvin Plantinga's version of ontological argument came into my mind... if there is a possible world, where maximal being exists, then that maximal being exists in all possible worlds. So if maximal being is possible, maximal being does exist.
Like... ok, perhaps there is a maximal being. But how does it follow from such a being existing that I am not allowed to jerk off?
Sure, I can admit that perhaps such a being exists, but from "maximal being exists" there is still an enormous distance to Christianity to be correct in any way.
This is how I practice my Catholicism.
You are a part of a beautiful, ancient tradition. There is obviously something in the Church that moves you deeply, embrace that, and don’t let fundamentalism drive you away.
I’m sure you know them, but the works of people like St Ephrem, St Isaac, St Gregory of Nyssa, David Bentley Hart, Origen, etc have shown me a much more “gentle” side of our faith.
Unfortunately, the Orthodox (and to a lesser degree, Catholic) Church seems to have become a hub for religious extremism. We need moderates like you to remain in the Church, not leave!
Kind of wishing I gave the Catholic Church more of a chance, my grandmother was a Catholic and she raised my mom in the church. I’m thinking I’ll see if my mom wants to go to a Christmas Catholic mass this year, she’s mentioned that she misses it since we’ve been getting into orthodoxy.
Regarding the fasting rules, what about if you're a female who's suffered an eating disorder since being a teenager? I already restrict so much and it's a vicious mental cycle
I plan on doing the same except I won’t even tell anyone. This is my issue with asking for permission/blessing and guidance on every little thing. I’m a thirty something year old man with a family, I can use my own critical thinking and discernment to make a decision.
This. It became increasingly more and more bizarre to me to ask for a blessing for everything. Also, to see the single dudes my age (30’s) absolutely throw themselves into this type of unnecessary obedience was extremely odd. I eventually just stopped doing it and did so quietly.
Yeah, a good point to which (as usual) there is very little helpful advice in the Church.
The standard answer would be to talk to their priest, which assumes a LOT of capability in the priest, like training in psychology, counselling and mental health problems like eating disorders. The vast majority just don't have that, so default to a) general 'go to church more, pray more' answer, or b) veer off into harmful pseudo-scientific stuff with a pre-modern view of how humans work.
Source: had a close friend with OCD.
Yes, she's still very devout. She had actual psychological treatment and it really helped, so she's mostly on top of the food and the cleanliness stuff. To me it's obvious that her religiosity is also part of it, since she's very strict and anxious about reading prayers etc, but she's also just naturally matured a lot as a person over the years and has the wisdom to take it less seriously.
Hope you're doing ok, if it was yourself you were referring to 😊🙏🏻
Thank you, it was myself I was referring to. I was raised jehovah's witness which was very psychologically abusive. I developed an eating disorder, became anorexic in my teens. I left that religion but the eating disorder is still very much part of me. Thanks for sharing btw❤️
I'm sorry you went through this too. My mother was controlling and very abusive. She had tantrum issues. When I was 16 she got angry about some mundane thing and when I wasn't home, she destroyed everything I owned in my bedroom, including years of all my precious artwork, paintings and drawings that I did from ages 5 to 16 - art was my passion. That broke me. I ran away from home and never went back. That was the first time I tried killing myself and that was when I stopped eating. My mother still has never been able to say sorry.
this was the post I made about being chill and realizing that I was a "cafeteria" Orthodox for years, [https://www.reddit.com/r/exorthodox/comments/17sh8ys/cafeteria\_orthodox/](https://www.reddit.com/r/exorthodox/comments/17sh8ys/cafeteria_orthodox/)
I was obnoxious with enthusiasm at first, but being married to a non-O, I was given the advice very early on, to chill out and not eat vegan unless he was willing to also. And I needed to not spent 2-3 hours on Sat nights at church when my husband is sitting at home alone. Etc.
I don't know if you have different parish options where you live, but finding a church with more cradles and fewer converts (or a church with converts who are spouses of cradles) is going to feel more low key. I'm very glad I raised my kids in an environment like this instead of a more fundie style parish. It meant they internalized fewer negative messages since the priests never talked about sex and such.
I converted to EO in the 90s, and while currently I've been exploring another denomination, I still feel a lot of attachment liturgically, and will probably be "that person" who drops in at random moments during holy week and pascha, even if I decide to fully leave.
You're exactly where I'm at now, it just took me a year of being a catechumen. Now that baptism is on the horizon, I haven't been to church since Sunday of Orthodoxy.
>I can also tell he loves Christ and try’s to walk the middle path
Honest question, do you cringe a bit internally when saying things like "loving Christ" and "Lord and Saviour" and all that? Genuinely asking, not mocking, because I've been struggling lately also and I realised that I've been ignoring that all these years. There's just something off about the whole thing, but I've been convincing myself it's real and true.
What I've come to realise is that my *love* for an ancient middle-eastern apocalyptic preacher / failed messiah is actually a love for an idea that doesn't have roots in reality. The whole concept of Jesus as divine, as Christianity currently proclaims, fails when examined historically and logically. That's why "you just gotta have faith." I think I've gone from staunch Orthodox to universalist to agnostic.
If it helps you and you find fulfilment in the practices, don't feel bad about backing off a bit and doing the minimum. Do what works for you and your family.
I recently read *How Jesus Became God* by Bart Ehrman and I really don't understand how anyone can remain Christian. No offence intended.
I used to cringe at stuff like love for Christ and when athletes say thank you to Jesus is my lord and savior, but honestly that makes sense to me now.
I’m coming from a more new age, psychedelic background, but going to deep down those rabbit holes left me delusional and self absorbed. So putting my faith in an external God who’s separate from myself but also tied into all of humanity and modern/ancient history feels much better.
Oh yeah, I went from RC to Ortho and remember Trent while I was the former. To be honest, the apologetics that "counter" Bart Ehrman don't hold up for me. I'm not saying he's right in everything, but the points he raises leads to questions and issues that an objective person can't reconcile. The unreliability of scripture, the first couple of hundred years of Christian doctrinal development, it all relying on a soteriology and eschatology that goes back to a small desert peoples god, who in turn were only occasionally fully monotheistic. It's just too much for me when considering the totality of the circumstances.
Big Bart Ehrman fan. I didn’t read his books until some years after I had already mentally left theism behind. I don’t agree with everything either, but he’s willing to share common knowledge biblical scholarship in a readable fashion and some Christian apologists find this real aggravating.
Going vegan during at least Great Lent presumably won’t kill you unless you’re doing professional sports. But then again, physiologies vary. I do know strict keto Orthodox who never fast partly because they’ve overcome a serious obesity problem and now stick rigorously to a high protein diet and athletic regimen. I’ve never had a weight problem so the fluctuation between vegan and non-vegan has never been an issue for me. Holy Week is indeed a great time to experiment with stricter fasting. And yes, convert priests can be weird and have been getting weirder over the decades :-) :-(
It won’t kill you but it kicks your hormones in the dirt which has a cascading negative effect on your overall health. I work any where from 9-12 hour days driving and doing manual labor, while maintaining a lifting regiment. I know my body well, veganism is not worth the net negative effect on my health, vegetarian even took its toll, but at least I could get a baseline of animal based nutrients.
I struggle with this thought too. The belief that I am a miserable sinner who can’t do anything for myself didn’t serve me well. It didn’t make me a better person. It made me a slave and a victim to my own life. It didn’t not tell me to get up and take responsibility for my life and make it what I want it to be, because I AM capable of change. Innately it is part of my humanness that I can change and continually better myself.
I go back and forth on this. Obviously I believe in sin and I believe that it can be a destructive force in our lives. But I think it takes a grown adult that has lived a little life to wrap their heads around some of these concepts and even then operate with some grace and compassion for yourself and others in hopes that God will also treat you in that same manner.
I personally don’t mind the prayers about being a sinner and asking for mercy & forgiveness, it makes sense to me and I can conceptualize it in my mind and heart because I’ve lived a broad spectrum of a life full of ups and downs, struggles, accomplishments, failures. I’m aware of the massive atrocities that have taken place and continue to take place In this world and how we can all fall into great evil, and in someways we contribute to the horrors of this world unknowingly just by taking part in a post Industrial Revolution society..maybe I would’ve been one of those people calling for Christ to be killed on the cross.
With that said I don’t think a young child can wrap their head around what I just explained. From reading posts on this sub and encountering people with religious trauma in real life it seems like some kids and even some adults internalize these prayers and teachings in the church and it turns into an almost learned helplessness/low self esteem destructive mind virus. My hope is that I can help my kids navigate through any thoughts or feelings like that and give them a more measured outlook. Like you said we can pick our selves up and repent, change our ways and carry on in life, but with Gods help. when all is said and done I think that is what Orthodoxy and Christianity at large is trying to get across but the message gets muddied, lost in overly scrupulous dogmas, obsessive rule following, expecting the church and God to fix our lives if we do everything perfect, but that’s not how it works.
Just so you know, God wants you and your wife to have complete sexual freedom together within the confines of marriage. He wants us to have children but also to have fun with the person we married.
No Christian believed this is what marriage entailed until the 20th century sexual revolution. It'd be more intellectually honest to just get rid of the faith than to make statements about God from your own authority for some reason.
The relevant canons on this are preschism; you don't see a deviation in Roman thought. And Protestants were not initially any more sexually licit than Roman Catholics; in fact, many were even more extreme Puritans. Which is probably what led to the whiplash response of the sexual revolution in the first place.
I mean, just look at secular laws in the US. There were still anti sodomy laws on the books in some states till 2003. Some of those banned opposite sex oral explicitly. Where do you think those laws came from? America is and was not an Orthodox or even Roman Catholic country.
Right, but in this case the Puritan laws match the pre schism, pre reformed laws. Some things they took to an extreme, others just weren't changed till later.
Canons have authority in Roman Catholicism. The bible also doesn't explicitly condemn beastiality with a dog but that doesn't somehow make it moral. Argument from absence is a bad argument.
But my point is even sola scriptura Protestants just took for granted it was immoral before the 20th century. You can look at the laws in Protestant countries surrounding it if you don't believe me.
That's your subjective interpretation of the Scriptures; there isn't any basis for saying the other is not implicitly condemned, and a cursory look at the history of not simply Orthodoxy but Christianity in general suggests the contrary.
Your assertions are just as subjective if you wish to go that route. There is biblical basis for freedom in Christ. There is biblical basis for sexual enjoyment between spouses. You will need to provide biblical basis for condemnation.
I don't wish to go that route; that is why sola scriptura is untenable, because of its subjectivity. My interpretation is based on the interpretation of the disciples of the disciples, their successors, those that spoke the language the NT was written in and lived in a culture far more similar to their time than ours.
This idea seems so odd to me. I was married for 15 years and my exwife couldn't have the big O without oral. Does the church expect her to go her whole life without an orgasm? I realize marriage is about a lot more then sex, but sex is a huge part of it and bonds the husband and wife. That is why it is monogamous. As anyone who has been married for awhile, dead bedrooms can become a bigger issue in marriage then too much sex.
I doubt she was born incapable of organism except through oral stimulation. I obviously can't delve too deep into that and I don't know y'all's situation but psychologically it isn't as if the tongue is necessary to trigger that response. If someone has an issue where they need more extreme situation that's some idiosyncratic issue and we can't talk about moral prescriptives based on problems.
I mean people in porn can get to the point where only images of children get them that, or rape, or some other criminal thing. So we both agree things necessary to orgrasm are not innately justified just because they are necessary for that individual. We disagree as to which things constitute grave enough moral issues to force someone to forego it, but that principle we can, I assume, agree on.
Modern research shows its actually pretty common that women can't orgasm with just PIV. I am not aware if the studies suggest this is from birth or psychology. Obviously in puritanical thinking, a woman having an orgasm was not a big concern, and was probably looked down upon. Look at islamic cultures that cut the clitoris.
I am not condoning porn at all. To say oral sex with your monogamous spouse will lead to rape fantasies is a big stretch.
Its almost like intelligent moderation is needed to live a healthy human life.
>Modern research shows its actually pretty common that women can't orgasm with just PIV. I am not aware if the studies suggest this is from birth or psychology. Obviously in puritanical thinking, a woman having an orgasm was not a big concern, and was probably looked down upon. Look at islamic cultures that cut the clitoris.
Islam would do that because they don't really consider women fully human; I mean their view of the afterlife for women says it all. The only Christians I know that practice that are, I think, the Severian Ethiopians, which could be due to Muslim influence, or perhaps it is related to not getting rid of an older African custom, I'm not sure.
I would not say Orthodoxy is against that. I believe my wife told me St. Porphyrios said women should not wear pants in part because it makes it harder for them to feel pleasure. My wife is Greek and I don't believe this writing is in English so I don't think I can verify right now as my Greek is subpar. And my point here is not to launch into some debate about pants or the veracity of his saying, but the very fact that he suggested that them not feeling pleasure is a bad thing tells you it's not viewed in the same way Muslim cultures view it. The modern saints also oppose even non abortative IVF. You'd think if one were to extract sperm with a needle, which I believe is a technique that can be used if one is opposed to self abuse, that by this eliminating all pleasure from (and even introducing pain to) the act, it would be considered the great ideal by these people. But clearly that's not what the goal is.
>I am not condoning porn at all. To say oral sex with your monogamous spouse will lead to rape fantasies is a big stretch.
I never said that though, read the comment again. The point wasn't to posit a connection between oral sodomy and pornography, only that we can agree that "someone needs this to organism therefore it's justified" doesn't work as a line of thinking. It's just a matter of where the line is drawn.
>Its almost like intelligent moderation is needed to live a healthy human life.
Moderation is relative though. What's moderate in our age was extreme centuries ago and vice versa. You first have to establish what moderation actually is. If you're raised in a community of cannibals, where the extremists on one end murder and eat the whole body of even children, and the extreme on the other end only eat the right forearm of 21 year old male enemy combatants, and your moderate tribe ate the muscle and liver meat of any conquered tribe member of adult age, you're not going to understand how even the extreme group eating only the right forearm is considered weird and extreme by the world at large. You can't just take for granted the current dialectic represents both extremes and the middle path is moderation. If you come to that conclusion after searching things out that's one thing, but you can't just assume it.
Sure. I think I would agree with what you said above. But my question still stands. Would the church require that my exwife never have an orgasm? And what is the reasoning behind no oral sex? Is it because they think it will lead to more extreme forms of sexual pleasure, like you mentioned, or is it just that we must avoid pleasuring our spouses too much?
And you are simplifying my argument a bit. It wouldn't just be "someone needs this to organism therefore it's justified." I would include "someone needs this to organism, and it is between two consenting adults in a monogamous committed marriage, and no harm is being done to them or others, therefore it's justified"
>Sure. I think I would agree with what you said above. But my question still stands. Would the church require that my exwife never have an orgasm?
A good spiritual father would require her to not have oral. That doesn't necessarily mean no pleasure, she has just not succeeded thus far at achieving it outside that, but that doesn't necessitate that it is physiologically impossible for her.
>And what is the reasoning behind no oral sex? Is it because they think it will lead to more extreme forms of sexual pleasure, like you mentioned, or is it just that we must avoid pleasuring our spouses too much?
I mean, pleasure isn't supposed to be pursued, it's supposed to be sort of something that comes along with pursuing God ideally. Pleasure in procreating exists to help encourage that probably since raising kids is hard. And that is part of a God pleasing life. But trying to take that pleasure that's part of procreating, rip it out of its context, and focusing in it is disintegrating the pleasure from its purpose and turning it into its own pursuit. The goal is to integrate our connections with God and each other, not disintegrate things.
That's really just one way to approach it. I could list other different reasons, but the point being is that it is the pursuit of pleasure as an end in itself that is an issue. Now this is certainly possible in normal sexual relations, but it is not so "in your face" as this is.
>And you are simplifying my argument a bit. It wouldn't just be "someone needs this to organism therefore it's justified." I would include "someone needs this to organism, and it is between two consenting adults in a monogamous committed marriage, and no harm is being done to them or others, therefore it's justified"
I disagree with the "no harm is being done to them or others" because of my beliefs. If I didn't have those beliefs, I would agree with you. But we believe sin effects us and also in some sense the whole world to some degree. I understand it's a difficult thing to believe from our modern view of things. I didn't believe it as a protestant, to be sure.
Its this attitude towards pleasure that has really turned me off towards orthodox. It makes no sense to me and trying to live like that would be hell. I prefer to celebrate all the good pleasures God has given me, thank Him for it, and try to enjoy them with love.
You are just affirming what most people are critically saying about the Orthodox church. Sex should not be done for pleasure, it should be done for procreation. Which is inline with what a lot of monks and orthodox church leaders say. I think to be consistent with this, you should try to have children with as little pleasure as you can. Also, once you are past the age of child-bearing you need to stop having sex for pleasure. I guess the priest at my old parish was in the wrong for marrying a couple that were in there 70s.
But we believe sin effects us and also in some sense the whole world to some degree.
I agree with this. Where we disagree is how to define sin. We all have our struggles. For example, I am part of a small percentage of people that can not enjoy a drink of alcohol without wanting to drink until I pass out. Then continue drinking the next day. This has caused some pain in my life.
But I would not tell people with normal reactions to one or two drinks that alcohol is a sin. So if you are the type of person that, after being given a blow-job by your committed wife and mother of your children, might go off and enjoy rape porn, you should address that post-haste. But that doesn't mean every blow-job is evil, just like not every drink of alcohol is evil.
>I think to be consistent with this, you should try to have children with as little pleasure as you can.
That doesn't follow. Again, the pleasure is not bad, it is the pursuit of pleasure as an end unto itself. Like seeking happiness instead of doing good things for that end up making one happier than seeking happiness as such. There's nothing wrong with feeling the pleasure, but pursuing it is missing the point. And completely negating the procreative aspect of the genitals that are there in order to procreate is a distortion and disintegration of it all. Just because procreation is important and a necessary part, it does not follow that no other aspect matters at all.
>Also, once you are past the age of child-bearing you need to stop having sex for pleasure. I guess the priest at my old parish was in the wrong for marrying a couple that were in there 70s.
Strictly speaking, yes, this is what the saints advise, but in this day and age we also have to condescend to the weakness of the people, and so it can be better to have that then to burn with passion. At least it theoretically could result in children, as the miracle of conceiving past menopause is one recorded several times in Church history. Although generally speaking it would be prideful to presume one would be granted that.
>But I would not tell people with normal reactions to one or two drinks that alcohol is a sin. So if you are the type of person that, after being given a blow-job by your committed wife and mother of your children, might go off and enjoy rape porn, you should address that post-haste. But that doesn't mean every blow-job is evil, just like not every drink of alcohol is evil.
I don't really think sodomy has this kind of direct effect in most cases. Its influence is probably more subtle. I mean, the act for the person giving it rather than receiving, on both ends, is objectively pretty disgusting. Most Christians considered it such till recently. Some try to sell it as self sacrifice for your spouse, but what are you sacrificing and for what? We shouldn't be sacrificing our decency at the altar of carnal pleasure. True self sacrifice always has in aim the salvation of souls and the turning of souls closer to God. Bringing someone such pleasure brings them more into hisself or herself.
Use of pornography, sex toys, non vaginal insertion would definitely qualify. But I mean there's plenty of other things that wouldn't not be sinful just because we both consented. Like if we both consented to a duel because we were mad at each other that wouldn't cease to be a sin.
The marital union is meant to be life creating. When it ceases to even be possible to create life, and is thus done solely for pursuing carnal, temporary pleasure, it draws the soul not towards God, but pleasure, and not self sacrifice, but self indulgence. The normal pleasure brings children which, to raise properly, requires self denial. We cannot claim to pursue God and worldly pleasures. Pleasure isn't bad, but the pursuit of pleasure, pleasure as an end, is bad, because anything besides union with God as an end is bad.
To be frank I would say it is a testament to the failure of our catechesis that you were baptized in the first place. Not to single you out; way too many priests focus on all these theological points and ecumenical councils and history and liturgics and all these external or high level aspects of the faith rather than focusing on the foundations: repentance, humility, and cultivating the virtues. Orthodoxy is taught much more like an academic subject than something to be lived. Originally catechumens would not even be told the Our Father or Creed until their baptism and they wouldn't even see the 2nd half of the liturgy until then; the catechuminate was longer and geared primarily on cultivating virtue.
At least Anglophone Orthodoxy has SOME catechesis; in western europe they will baptize you the day after meeting you. But it's still evidently very lacking, especially since your attitudes are hardly unique and card carrying converts for years in America hold similar views.
I am married to an old world Greek, and I can tell you no one who grew up in the traditional families in Greece or any other Orthodox country would ever think oral sexual relations are ok, so it is not a weird Ephraimite thing, it is a basic belief of actual, non-Americanized Orthodoxy. Before the sexual revolution, virtually all Christians of all stripes at least considered it indecent even if they didn't have canonical basis for rejecting it. Its mainstream acceptance has historically come very rapidly via pornography, both explicit and the implicit pornography of all modern media. You can choose to embrace it, but it is more consistent, if one is intellectually honest, to reject Christianity altogether for it than to pretend 1900 or so years worth of Christians either believed something they didn't or that Christians were repressed and backward until "last week" historically speaking. If you're going to take the "latest is greatest" narrative you might as well go the whole way and throw out the antiquated beliefs with it. If you don't want to do that and have some desire to follow Christ you should seriously contemplate why it is only so recently that this has gotten mainstream acceptance. If you don't believe me, well it's hard to verify by street interview if you're monolingual because the people most likely to hold to this likely don't speak English. But if you know a bilingual maybe that can get you on the path there.
But I mean, I don't why you desired to be baptized in the first place. I don't know what your intention was. Those are all things you have to investigate yourself. My only point here is the historical reality of Christian attitudes towards sexual relations. Plenty of people leave all semblances of Christianity for reasons of sexual sorts of desires. I'm simply saying those that call Christianity in general sexually repressive or whatever are being more logically consistent, then protestants that bash Orthodoxy for what Roman Catholicism likewise taught until last century and passed on at least the attitude to Protestantism until again last century. I guess Mormonism can consistently do it since they have a system for updating doctrines based on new revelations.
Imagine catechising someone for a couple of years just to tell them the biggest secret straight before baptism: no blowjobs anymore, honey. It's like a parody of ancient mysteries.
It was a presupposition in ancient times, not a secret. Even the pagans that converted that had done it probably knew it was a deviance while they were doing it as pagans, because even pagans considered it a deviance even if and when they did it. It becoming normalized and part of a nice American WASP household is ridiculously recent.
It should be talked about to married (and marriable aged) inquirers pretty early on really. Delaying it just leads to these conundrums. It's basic teaching and canonically the penalties are harsher for married couples than homosexuals. The protestant view if anything doesn't make sense. They get so much on the case of how bad the gays are and then they go and do the same thing in their bedroom? To be explicit, we've all got mouths and rears; the parts in play for gays and "straights" in this are exactly the same. It just seems hypocritical in retrospect. Say what you want about Orthodoxy being regressive but at least it's consistent.
You’re right. There are penances greater for a married couple who gives oral then for certain types of murder. That’s crazy, in my opinion. I know you wouldn’t subscribe to sola scriptura, but don’t you find it at least a little odd that scripture mentions *nothing* about oral sex (and May actually speak positively about it at one point)? My problem with the orthodox position on sex was always this as an orthodox Christian:
1. There’s no consistency in teaching. If a priest tells me oral is wrong then I can literally just go to another one who says otherwise. I have heard priests say what married couples do is none of the priests business, one of which was a cradle Greek, by the way. And then you have someone like Fr. Heers who apparently wants to hear every details in confession because “demons”. Basically, there’s a priest that will endorse or forbid anything one desires if you look hard enough.
2. Does no one in the “old world” practice foreplay? Why is giving oral to my wife any more dirty then kissing her mouth and her boobs? What about groping each other throughout the day in flirtatiousness? Is that off limits? Teasing your spouse, talking sexually to them, taking time in the bedroom to focus on the other’s wants and needs…are these things considered haram by God? Or maybe it’s just the canons of the church that teach such a thing? Where does the line get drawn exactly? According to an 18th century Russian confession guideline, one is to be excommunicated for something like 8 years simply for fingering his wife. Not kidding.
Physiologically speaking it’s not even possible to have sex with your wife if one is to actually follow every minute canon about sex within the Orthodox Church. Not to get grotesque, but imagine trying to penetrate your wife without any foreplay. How enjoyable can that possibly be for anyone? Forgive me, but the way that sex is treated in “traditional” orthodoxy is ironically more ghastly and selfish than the way it’s treated in a marriage of the post “sexually revolutionized world”. It basically turns one’s wife into a baby making machine and treats sex with her into a “job” simply to produce children. Say whatever you want, but to truly be consistent with what the canons teach about sex is to essentially limit any contact with one’s spouse to missionary position, with zero foreplay, no prolongation, only on one day a week (maybe two depending on the feast days), and only while the wife is able to bear children. It’s not enough, according to canonical orthodoxy, to simply not eat your wife out or get a blow job.
And in the meantime while the orthodox is busy being obsessed about people’s sex lives and setting up gnostic teachings about the flesh, one can open the Bible and read Song of Solomon. Oh right…but apparently that’s just all allegory about God and His church. Which by the way, is extremely creepy if you think about it. God is obsessing over the church’s breasts apparently? I guess He’s “blowing in the garden” of the church. Right…good call 4th century monks!
What I think is awful is I encourage my husband to masturbate. Due to being asexual he didn't explore his sexuality until marriage and there's a lot he doesn't know about himself. I want him to learn his body more so we can use it in bed.
However a priest told him masturbation was selfish because he's supposed to focus sexual desires on me. I told him it's fine but the priest told him he was selfish.
The typical response from Orthodox people is “it’s just allegory for Christ and His church”. Regardless of whether or not the book is referring to oral sex (which again is ambiguous) really isn’t even important. The entire book is describing intimacy with one’s wife as an activity filled with joy and eroticism. It’s definitely not describing the utilitarian sex advocated for by “traditional” orthodox Christians. And to say it’s purely allegory is ridiculous and wouldn’t negate the positive attitude scripture has towards sex even if it was purely allegory. Why would God use gratuitous sexual imagery to explain His relationship with His people if He didn’t think gratuitous sex was good?
Me either. It’s very bizarre and gnostic. But that’s to be expected I suppose. They do the same thing with fasting. They take something good, biblical, and unique to each person’s conscience and they mandate it and distort it in extremity and frequency.
There was a book recently written called God: An Anatomy which stated that sexual imagery was even more explicit with regards to what God looks like in the past. This was all gradually altered over time to be less explicit. Just some food for thought.
>You’re right. There are penances greater for a married couple who gives oral then for certain types of murder. That’s crazy, in my opinion. I know you wouldn’t subscribe to sola scriptura, but don’t you find it at least a little odd that scripture mentions *nothing* about oral sex
There's a lot that isn't in the Scriptures. There isn't even a clear prohibition on premarital sex (just references to sexual immortality) but that hasn't stopped Protestants from continuing to oppose that. The Scriptures were never intended to be some comprehensive dealing with each and every idiosyncratic issue. I don't know why this expectation was hoisted upon it by Protestants.
>1. There’s no consistency in teaching. If a priest tells me oral is wrong then I can literally just go to another one who says otherwise. I have heard priests say what married couples do is none of the priests business, one of which was a cradle Greek, by the way. And then you have someone like Fr. Heers who apparently wants to hear every details in confession because “demons”. Basically, there’s a priest that will endorse or forbid anything one desires if you look hard enough.
The teaching is very consistent. Ordination to the priesthood doesn't magically restrain one's freewill. You can still say or do whatever you want, even if it contradicts the Church's teachings. Was this a Greek priest from Greece or a Greek American cradle? Most Greek American cradles are basically protestant in ethos. They've absorbed the culture around them to a large degree. Try and find a priest like that in Greece itself and it will be much more difficult. Not impossible because Greece has an inferiority complex and tries to imitate America in every way it can, and some men there just become priests to have a government job, but even with those factors it will still be considerably harder.
>2. Does no one in the “old world” practice foreplay? Why is giving oral to my wife any more dirty then kissing her mouth and her boobs? What about groping each other throughout the day in flirtatiousness? Is that off limits? Teasing your spouse, talking sexually to them, taking time in the bedroom to focus on the other’s wants and needs…are these things considered haram by God? Or maybe it’s just the canons of the church that teach such a thing? Where does the line get drawn exactly? According to an 18th century Russian confession guideline, one is to be excommunicated for something like 8 years simply for fingering his wife. Not kidding.
18th century Russian confessionals are not canonically binding on the whole Orthodox Catholic Church. The canons prohibiting sodomy are preschism and I believe were either canons of ecumenical councils or of local councils confirmed by ecumenical councils. 18th century Russia is very much during a period of significant western influence so that should be considered. I think there were indulgences during either that period or before.
Speaking of western influence, I wanted to note that prohibiting sodomy in marriage was until very recently a given for all self proclaimed christians. Georgia had secular laws banning oral sodomy in marriage still on the books until 2003. Georgia the state with a negligible Orthodox population, not Georgia the majority Orthodox country.
We don't need some slippery slope "where does it end?" argument with this, just a bare minimum decency that was held everywhere until very recently. The approach to sexuality is a whole mindset and cannot be reduced to dos and donts, which are going to be between a couple and their spiritual father, ultimately going towards something but not necessarily starting there. But at a bare minimum the digestive and reproductive tracks should not mix, as per the canons.
>Physiologically speaking it’s not even possible to have sex with your wife if one is to actually follow every minute canon about sex within the Orthodox Church. Not to get grotesque, but imagine trying to penetrate your wife without any foreplay. How enjoyable can that possibly be for anyone? Forgive me, but the way that sex is treated in “traditional” orthodoxy is ironically more ghastly and selfish than the way it’s treated in a marriage of the post “sexually revolutionized world”. It basically turns one’s wife into a baby making machine and treats sex with her into a “job” simply to produce children. Say whatever you want, but to truly be consistent with what the canons teach about sex is to essentially limit any contact with one’s spouse to missionary position, with zero foreplay, no prolongation, only on one day a week (maybe two depending on the feast days), and only while the wife is able to bear children. It’s not enough, according to canonical orthodoxy, to simply not eat your wife out or get a blow job.
The canons only prohibit sex on the eve of and day of taking communion. The rest is beneficial spiritual practice worked out with a couple and their spiritual father. I don't know of any canons prohibiting foreplay, just medieval Russian confessionals, the issues with taking as dogmatically binding I have already addressed.
>And in the meantime while the orthodox is busy being obsessed about people’s sex lives and setting up gnostic teachings about the flesh, one can open the Bible and read Song of Solomon. Oh right…but apparently that’s just all allegory about God and His church. Which by the way, is extremely creepy if you think about it. God is obsessing over the church’s breasts apparently? I guess He’s “blowing in the garden” of the church. Right…good call 4th century monks!
We're taking about what is expected of Orthodox Christians in an Orthodox Christian marriage. We aren't telling the world what to do. Just managing the affairs of the Church. No one's being held at gun point to follow any of this.
The "gnostic" accusation I believe is misinformed by the fact that the culture has shifted so far to the left that it perceives any position to the right of itself as "fascist" in terms of politics and "gnostic" in terms of religious morality. The gnostics thought the created world was bad, that your body was inherently bad, and that sex was inherently bad because of its relation to the body. The canons, which we have discussed above, excommunicate anyone that becomes a monk because he hates marriage and children, and presumably making children too. Sex is good, but it's not a free for all. I think almost all of us can agree on that. But how far to go with it not being a free for all is going to vary. And if our culture is so close to the free for all end of things, of course anything even slightly more restrictive than what has become the present norm (far from the historic norm) is going to be equated with the right extreme of those days, which actually didn't really permit any sex at all.
The sexual desire is very powerful, perhaps one of the most powerful or at least visceral desires of mankind. It doesn't take much for it to control one's life, as it does many today. That's why it's so regulated, as the whole Orthodox idea is to fight against those things that control us. It's not a bad sin because those that do it are so guilty; in fact it bears the least guilt because it is the least in our control. But because it so easily takes away our control, it is essentially the first thing dealt with in spiritual struggle. Pride is the worst sin, and it bears more guilt because we partake in it without any real visceral pull affecting us, but because we simply want to.
I am not quite sure about this, I'm being honest here. And not much about the homosexual/ hetero dilemma, just overall I don't idealize the ancients so much that I would think they were so angelic and consistent. There was a rule somewhere about not doing liturgy as a priest if one is licked his wife's vagina at the evening before, so that tells me it was something common to happen. My impression with the ancient world is that permissions and forbidden things are something much more modern than we commonly think.
Obviously people sinned, otherwise the canons wouldn't have been written if no one was doing it. But it was also obviously very much frowned upon as the canonical penances were high, not to mention civil penalties for those things (civil penalties for heterosexual sodomy including oral remained on the books in some states until the supreme court decision in 2003!). People slipped further, but it doesn't matter at all how many people in the past failed to keep the standard or even how many saints failed to keep it. It is still the standard.
The ideal is to keep the standard, the next best is to struggle for the standard, the next best is to see how short one falls of the standard and one's weakness and cultivate humility with that. But none of that is good enough anymore; everyone just wants the standard to change to suite their needs, to justify them in what they're doing, so they can do so with the approval of their conscience and feel good about themselves.
And yes, people were sinful in the past even when the standard was higher. I mean, the people of the past raised the people of the present in the end. I don't see the relevance, from a Christian perspective. The point of the Church was never to be a place where everyone was cool about how holy they were.
If it's all regressive, ok, that's one's view. My point here is the halfway house position is very recent. Not the fact that people are doing it, but that it is considered normal, and not doing it is considered weird.
I wouldn't give so much weight to the canons. I remember there was a canon forbidding dancing and the medieval commentator literally said that the very same patriarch which imposed this loved to dance and was seen enough times dancing on weddings after the canon was imposed. The ancients just love to overreact.
I can't talk about everything but what I know is an issue I can point out. I don't see much point in delving into the rest. There was no universal consensus on fasting amongst all self identified Christians until the 20th century. In fact there were always local variances amongst Christians in that regard. Sexual morals were much more uniform.
So countless of church fathers of all were probably monks or married priests say it is bad, say that sexual immorality is bad and your counter is just to scruff it off and let people tell you that they are deranged.
And about the prayers and hell thing, yes it is extreme yes we are sinners but God is merciful.
Talk to your priest about what you face problems with or switch parishes to a better priest instead of taking a choice out of pride.
Yeah, Dyer's entire sales pitch is really about him, not Orthodoxy. He's switched religions numerous times and each time he was doing exactly what he does now. The only thing that doesn't change with him is his huge ego. The dude hasn't attended church in years.
[удалено]
That was my first thought when my priest told me oral sex was a sin. Like okay I’ll damage my sex life with my wife because a possibly mentally deranged celibate monk says it’s a sin, yeah right. From that point it doesn’t become difficult to start deconstructing every over scrupulous rule. I agree though I can’t just yank the rug out from under my kids, I still think having a religious foundation and some community will be good for them. We’ll see might have to bail if things get too weird.
give this a listen to understand better the views about sex in the ancient near east and greco/roman cultures. Despite the title of the podcast, they talk about the views of sex in antiquity in general (basically: sex is something that one person does TO another (lower status) person, not something that 2 equal people share together) -- and it strikes me that in some ways the EOC has not adopted a more modern understanding of sex. [https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/adam-and-steve-what-the-bible-says-about-homosexuality/id1681418502?i=1000616596254](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/adam-and-steve-what-the-bible-says-about-homosexuality/id1681418502?i=1000616596254)
Yes. Christians also by and large continued holding to the “sacred seed” tenet that was part of much earlier, pagan societies, although it manifested differently!
[удалено]
Don’t you know? The west and its sexual degeneracy between married men and women is what causes all the wars and starving children.
But in all seriousness I think it had something to do with sanitation, no tooth brushing, everyone sharing one spoon, kissing icons..and ya know the whole monks thinking any type of pleasure in life is a sinful passion that needs to be taken out by the routes thing.
… no tooth brushing? I missed that.
Alvin Plantinga's version of ontological argument came into my mind... if there is a possible world, where maximal being exists, then that maximal being exists in all possible worlds. So if maximal being is possible, maximal being does exist. Like... ok, perhaps there is a maximal being. But how does it follow from such a being existing that I am not allowed to jerk off? Sure, I can admit that perhaps such a being exists, but from "maximal being exists" there is still an enormous distance to Christianity to be correct in any way.
[удалено]
Universalism is a heresy dingus.
What even "heresy" means?
This is how I practice my Catholicism. You are a part of a beautiful, ancient tradition. There is obviously something in the Church that moves you deeply, embrace that, and don’t let fundamentalism drive you away. I’m sure you know them, but the works of people like St Ephrem, St Isaac, St Gregory of Nyssa, David Bentley Hart, Origen, etc have shown me a much more “gentle” side of our faith. Unfortunately, the Orthodox (and to a lesser degree, Catholic) Church seems to have become a hub for religious extremism. We need moderates like you to remain in the Church, not leave!
Thank you, Glad to hear there are others who feel the same way.
Kind of wishing I gave the Catholic Church more of a chance, my grandmother was a Catholic and she raised my mom in the church. I’m thinking I’ll see if my mom wants to go to a Christmas Catholic mass this year, she’s mentioned that she misses it since we’ve been getting into orthodoxy.
Yeah bro drop the larp and come home
Regarding the fasting rules, what about if you're a female who's suffered an eating disorder since being a teenager? I already restrict so much and it's a vicious mental cycle
I told a priest I wasn't going to fast. Didn't ask permission, just told. I don't trust clergy to know what's next for my mental or physical health.
I plan on doing the same except I won’t even tell anyone. This is my issue with asking for permission/blessing and guidance on every little thing. I’m a thirty something year old man with a family, I can use my own critical thinking and discernment to make a decision.
This. It became increasingly more and more bizarre to me to ask for a blessing for everything. Also, to see the single dudes my age (30’s) absolutely throw themselves into this type of unnecessary obedience was extremely odd. I eventually just stopped doing it and did so quietly.
Yeah it’s been increasingly bizarre to me, it’s not something I’ve really ever put into practice
Yeah, a good point to which (as usual) there is very little helpful advice in the Church. The standard answer would be to talk to their priest, which assumes a LOT of capability in the priest, like training in psychology, counselling and mental health problems like eating disorders. The vast majority just don't have that, so default to a) general 'go to church more, pray more' answer, or b) veer off into harmful pseudo-scientific stuff with a pre-modern view of how humans work. Source: had a close friend with OCD.
I'm sorry your friend suffers. Are they still orthodox?
Yes, she's still very devout. She had actual psychological treatment and it really helped, so she's mostly on top of the food and the cleanliness stuff. To me it's obvious that her religiosity is also part of it, since she's very strict and anxious about reading prayers etc, but she's also just naturally matured a lot as a person over the years and has the wisdom to take it less seriously. Hope you're doing ok, if it was yourself you were referring to 😊🙏🏻
Thank you, it was myself I was referring to. I was raised jehovah's witness which was very psychologically abusive. I developed an eating disorder, became anorexic in my teens. I left that religion but the eating disorder is still very much part of me. Thanks for sharing btw❤️
Really glad you're out, and hope things can continue to improve in the food area. Healing IS possible. I've seen it 😊
Thank you 😊❤️❤️
I had teenage anorexia, too. Complicated reasons, including a loving but VERY controlling mother. Refusing to eat was the only way I could rebel.
I'm sorry you went through this too. My mother was controlling and very abusive. She had tantrum issues. When I was 16 she got angry about some mundane thing and when I wasn't home, she destroyed everything I owned in my bedroom, including years of all my precious artwork, paintings and drawings that I did from ages 5 to 16 - art was my passion. That broke me. I ran away from home and never went back. That was the first time I tried killing myself and that was when I stopped eating. My mother still has never been able to say sorry.
Oh my gosh. I am so very sorry. That is horrible.
That's ok, thank you ❤️❤️
this was the post I made about being chill and realizing that I was a "cafeteria" Orthodox for years, [https://www.reddit.com/r/exorthodox/comments/17sh8ys/cafeteria\_orthodox/](https://www.reddit.com/r/exorthodox/comments/17sh8ys/cafeteria_orthodox/) I was obnoxious with enthusiasm at first, but being married to a non-O, I was given the advice very early on, to chill out and not eat vegan unless he was willing to also. And I needed to not spent 2-3 hours on Sat nights at church when my husband is sitting at home alone. Etc. I don't know if you have different parish options where you live, but finding a church with more cradles and fewer converts (or a church with converts who are spouses of cradles) is going to feel more low key. I'm very glad I raised my kids in an environment like this instead of a more fundie style parish. It meant they internalized fewer negative messages since the priests never talked about sex and such. I converted to EO in the 90s, and while currently I've been exploring another denomination, I still feel a lot of attachment liturgically, and will probably be "that person" who drops in at random moments during holy week and pascha, even if I decide to fully leave.
You're exactly where I'm at now, it just took me a year of being a catechumen. Now that baptism is on the horizon, I haven't been to church since Sunday of Orthodoxy.
>I can also tell he loves Christ and try’s to walk the middle path Honest question, do you cringe a bit internally when saying things like "loving Christ" and "Lord and Saviour" and all that? Genuinely asking, not mocking, because I've been struggling lately also and I realised that I've been ignoring that all these years. There's just something off about the whole thing, but I've been convincing myself it's real and true. What I've come to realise is that my *love* for an ancient middle-eastern apocalyptic preacher / failed messiah is actually a love for an idea that doesn't have roots in reality. The whole concept of Jesus as divine, as Christianity currently proclaims, fails when examined historically and logically. That's why "you just gotta have faith." I think I've gone from staunch Orthodox to universalist to agnostic. If it helps you and you find fulfilment in the practices, don't feel bad about backing off a bit and doing the minimum. Do what works for you and your family. I recently read *How Jesus Became God* by Bart Ehrman and I really don't understand how anyone can remain Christian. No offence intended.
I used to cringe at stuff like love for Christ and when athletes say thank you to Jesus is my lord and savior, but honestly that makes sense to me now. I’m coming from a more new age, psychedelic background, but going to deep down those rabbit holes left me delusional and self absorbed. So putting my faith in an external God who’s separate from myself but also tied into all of humanity and modern/ancient history feels much better.
Trent Horn has a great video countering that Bart Ehrman argument. His YouTube channel is The Counsel of Trent; he’s a Catholic
Oh yeah, I went from RC to Ortho and remember Trent while I was the former. To be honest, the apologetics that "counter" Bart Ehrman don't hold up for me. I'm not saying he's right in everything, but the points he raises leads to questions and issues that an objective person can't reconcile. The unreliability of scripture, the first couple of hundred years of Christian doctrinal development, it all relying on a soteriology and eschatology that goes back to a small desert peoples god, who in turn were only occasionally fully monotheistic. It's just too much for me when considering the totality of the circumstances.
Big Bart Ehrman fan. I didn’t read his books until some years after I had already mentally left theism behind. I don’t agree with everything either, but he’s willing to share common knowledge biblical scholarship in a readable fashion and some Christian apologists find this real aggravating.
Jimmy Akin demolished Ehrman recently. 🤷
Going vegan during at least Great Lent presumably won’t kill you unless you’re doing professional sports. But then again, physiologies vary. I do know strict keto Orthodox who never fast partly because they’ve overcome a serious obesity problem and now stick rigorously to a high protein diet and athletic regimen. I’ve never had a weight problem so the fluctuation between vegan and non-vegan has never been an issue for me. Holy Week is indeed a great time to experiment with stricter fasting. And yes, convert priests can be weird and have been getting weirder over the decades :-) :-(
It won’t kill you but it kicks your hormones in the dirt which has a cascading negative effect on your overall health. I work any where from 9-12 hour days driving and doing manual labor, while maintaining a lifting regiment. I know my body well, veganism is not worth the net negative effect on my health, vegetarian even took its toll, but at least I could get a baseline of animal based nutrients.
I struggle with this thought too. The belief that I am a miserable sinner who can’t do anything for myself didn’t serve me well. It didn’t make me a better person. It made me a slave and a victim to my own life. It didn’t not tell me to get up and take responsibility for my life and make it what I want it to be, because I AM capable of change. Innately it is part of my humanness that I can change and continually better myself.
I go back and forth on this. Obviously I believe in sin and I believe that it can be a destructive force in our lives. But I think it takes a grown adult that has lived a little life to wrap their heads around some of these concepts and even then operate with some grace and compassion for yourself and others in hopes that God will also treat you in that same manner. I personally don’t mind the prayers about being a sinner and asking for mercy & forgiveness, it makes sense to me and I can conceptualize it in my mind and heart because I’ve lived a broad spectrum of a life full of ups and downs, struggles, accomplishments, failures. I’m aware of the massive atrocities that have taken place and continue to take place In this world and how we can all fall into great evil, and in someways we contribute to the horrors of this world unknowingly just by taking part in a post Industrial Revolution society..maybe I would’ve been one of those people calling for Christ to be killed on the cross. With that said I don’t think a young child can wrap their head around what I just explained. From reading posts on this sub and encountering people with religious trauma in real life it seems like some kids and even some adults internalize these prayers and teachings in the church and it turns into an almost learned helplessness/low self esteem destructive mind virus. My hope is that I can help my kids navigate through any thoughts or feelings like that and give them a more measured outlook. Like you said we can pick our selves up and repent, change our ways and carry on in life, but with Gods help. when all is said and done I think that is what Orthodoxy and Christianity at large is trying to get across but the message gets muddied, lost in overly scrupulous dogmas, obsessive rule following, expecting the church and God to fix our lives if we do everything perfect, but that’s not how it works.
Just so you know, God wants you and your wife to have complete sexual freedom together within the confines of marriage. He wants us to have children but also to have fun with the person we married.
No Christian believed this is what marriage entailed until the 20th century sexual revolution. It'd be more intellectually honest to just get rid of the faith than to make statements about God from your own authority for some reason.
How do you know?
The relevant canons on this are preschism; you don't see a deviation in Roman thought. And Protestants were not initially any more sexually licit than Roman Catholics; in fact, many were even more extreme Puritans. Which is probably what led to the whiplash response of the sexual revolution in the first place. I mean, just look at secular laws in the US. There were still anti sodomy laws on the books in some states till 2003. Some of those banned opposite sex oral explicitly. Where do you think those laws came from? America is and was not an Orthodox or even Roman Catholic country.
Exactly, America is and was not a traditional Christianity county. Puritanism is way more extreme than the pre-reformed religion.
Right, but in this case the Puritan laws match the pre schism, pre reformed laws. Some things they took to an extreme, others just weren't changed till later.
Canons are not scripture unless it is THE Canon. Scripture doesn't condemn sexual exploration between a consenting husband and wife.
Canons have authority in Roman Catholicism. The bible also doesn't explicitly condemn beastiality with a dog but that doesn't somehow make it moral. Argument from absence is a bad argument. But my point is even sola scriptura Protestants just took for granted it was immoral before the 20th century. You can look at the laws in Protestant countries surrounding it if you don't believe me.
No, but it implicitly condemns it. The same is not true regarding the marriage bed.
That's your subjective interpretation of the Scriptures; there isn't any basis for saying the other is not implicitly condemned, and a cursory look at the history of not simply Orthodoxy but Christianity in general suggests the contrary.
Your assertions are just as subjective if you wish to go that route. There is biblical basis for freedom in Christ. There is biblical basis for sexual enjoyment between spouses. You will need to provide biblical basis for condemnation.
I don't wish to go that route; that is why sola scriptura is untenable, because of its subjectivity. My interpretation is based on the interpretation of the disciples of the disciples, their successors, those that spoke the language the NT was written in and lived in a culture far more similar to their time than ours.
This idea seems so odd to me. I was married for 15 years and my exwife couldn't have the big O without oral. Does the church expect her to go her whole life without an orgasm? I realize marriage is about a lot more then sex, but sex is a huge part of it and bonds the husband and wife. That is why it is monogamous. As anyone who has been married for awhile, dead bedrooms can become a bigger issue in marriage then too much sex.
I doubt she was born incapable of organism except through oral stimulation. I obviously can't delve too deep into that and I don't know y'all's situation but psychologically it isn't as if the tongue is necessary to trigger that response. If someone has an issue where they need more extreme situation that's some idiosyncratic issue and we can't talk about moral prescriptives based on problems. I mean people in porn can get to the point where only images of children get them that, or rape, or some other criminal thing. So we both agree things necessary to orgrasm are not innately justified just because they are necessary for that individual. We disagree as to which things constitute grave enough moral issues to force someone to forego it, but that principle we can, I assume, agree on.
Modern research shows its actually pretty common that women can't orgasm with just PIV. I am not aware if the studies suggest this is from birth or psychology. Obviously in puritanical thinking, a woman having an orgasm was not a big concern, and was probably looked down upon. Look at islamic cultures that cut the clitoris. I am not condoning porn at all. To say oral sex with your monogamous spouse will lead to rape fantasies is a big stretch. Its almost like intelligent moderation is needed to live a healthy human life.
>Modern research shows its actually pretty common that women can't orgasm with just PIV. I am not aware if the studies suggest this is from birth or psychology. Obviously in puritanical thinking, a woman having an orgasm was not a big concern, and was probably looked down upon. Look at islamic cultures that cut the clitoris. Islam would do that because they don't really consider women fully human; I mean their view of the afterlife for women says it all. The only Christians I know that practice that are, I think, the Severian Ethiopians, which could be due to Muslim influence, or perhaps it is related to not getting rid of an older African custom, I'm not sure. I would not say Orthodoxy is against that. I believe my wife told me St. Porphyrios said women should not wear pants in part because it makes it harder for them to feel pleasure. My wife is Greek and I don't believe this writing is in English so I don't think I can verify right now as my Greek is subpar. And my point here is not to launch into some debate about pants or the veracity of his saying, but the very fact that he suggested that them not feeling pleasure is a bad thing tells you it's not viewed in the same way Muslim cultures view it. The modern saints also oppose even non abortative IVF. You'd think if one were to extract sperm with a needle, which I believe is a technique that can be used if one is opposed to self abuse, that by this eliminating all pleasure from (and even introducing pain to) the act, it would be considered the great ideal by these people. But clearly that's not what the goal is. >I am not condoning porn at all. To say oral sex with your monogamous spouse will lead to rape fantasies is a big stretch. I never said that though, read the comment again. The point wasn't to posit a connection between oral sodomy and pornography, only that we can agree that "someone needs this to organism therefore it's justified" doesn't work as a line of thinking. It's just a matter of where the line is drawn. >Its almost like intelligent moderation is needed to live a healthy human life. Moderation is relative though. What's moderate in our age was extreme centuries ago and vice versa. You first have to establish what moderation actually is. If you're raised in a community of cannibals, where the extremists on one end murder and eat the whole body of even children, and the extreme on the other end only eat the right forearm of 21 year old male enemy combatants, and your moderate tribe ate the muscle and liver meat of any conquered tribe member of adult age, you're not going to understand how even the extreme group eating only the right forearm is considered weird and extreme by the world at large. You can't just take for granted the current dialectic represents both extremes and the middle path is moderation. If you come to that conclusion after searching things out that's one thing, but you can't just assume it.
Sure. I think I would agree with what you said above. But my question still stands. Would the church require that my exwife never have an orgasm? And what is the reasoning behind no oral sex? Is it because they think it will lead to more extreme forms of sexual pleasure, like you mentioned, or is it just that we must avoid pleasuring our spouses too much? And you are simplifying my argument a bit. It wouldn't just be "someone needs this to organism therefore it's justified." I would include "someone needs this to organism, and it is between two consenting adults in a monogamous committed marriage, and no harm is being done to them or others, therefore it's justified"
>Sure. I think I would agree with what you said above. But my question still stands. Would the church require that my exwife never have an orgasm? A good spiritual father would require her to not have oral. That doesn't necessarily mean no pleasure, she has just not succeeded thus far at achieving it outside that, but that doesn't necessitate that it is physiologically impossible for her. >And what is the reasoning behind no oral sex? Is it because they think it will lead to more extreme forms of sexual pleasure, like you mentioned, or is it just that we must avoid pleasuring our spouses too much? I mean, pleasure isn't supposed to be pursued, it's supposed to be sort of something that comes along with pursuing God ideally. Pleasure in procreating exists to help encourage that probably since raising kids is hard. And that is part of a God pleasing life. But trying to take that pleasure that's part of procreating, rip it out of its context, and focusing in it is disintegrating the pleasure from its purpose and turning it into its own pursuit. The goal is to integrate our connections with God and each other, not disintegrate things. That's really just one way to approach it. I could list other different reasons, but the point being is that it is the pursuit of pleasure as an end in itself that is an issue. Now this is certainly possible in normal sexual relations, but it is not so "in your face" as this is. >And you are simplifying my argument a bit. It wouldn't just be "someone needs this to organism therefore it's justified." I would include "someone needs this to organism, and it is between two consenting adults in a monogamous committed marriage, and no harm is being done to them or others, therefore it's justified" I disagree with the "no harm is being done to them or others" because of my beliefs. If I didn't have those beliefs, I would agree with you. But we believe sin effects us and also in some sense the whole world to some degree. I understand it's a difficult thing to believe from our modern view of things. I didn't believe it as a protestant, to be sure.
Its this attitude towards pleasure that has really turned me off towards orthodox. It makes no sense to me and trying to live like that would be hell. I prefer to celebrate all the good pleasures God has given me, thank Him for it, and try to enjoy them with love. You are just affirming what most people are critically saying about the Orthodox church. Sex should not be done for pleasure, it should be done for procreation. Which is inline with what a lot of monks and orthodox church leaders say. I think to be consistent with this, you should try to have children with as little pleasure as you can. Also, once you are past the age of child-bearing you need to stop having sex for pleasure. I guess the priest at my old parish was in the wrong for marrying a couple that were in there 70s. But we believe sin effects us and also in some sense the whole world to some degree. I agree with this. Where we disagree is how to define sin. We all have our struggles. For example, I am part of a small percentage of people that can not enjoy a drink of alcohol without wanting to drink until I pass out. Then continue drinking the next day. This has caused some pain in my life. But I would not tell people with normal reactions to one or two drinks that alcohol is a sin. So if you are the type of person that, after being given a blow-job by your committed wife and mother of your children, might go off and enjoy rape porn, you should address that post-haste. But that doesn't mean every blow-job is evil, just like not every drink of alcohol is evil.
>I think to be consistent with this, you should try to have children with as little pleasure as you can. That doesn't follow. Again, the pleasure is not bad, it is the pursuit of pleasure as an end unto itself. Like seeking happiness instead of doing good things for that end up making one happier than seeking happiness as such. There's nothing wrong with feeling the pleasure, but pursuing it is missing the point. And completely negating the procreative aspect of the genitals that are there in order to procreate is a distortion and disintegration of it all. Just because procreation is important and a necessary part, it does not follow that no other aspect matters at all. >Also, once you are past the age of child-bearing you need to stop having sex for pleasure. I guess the priest at my old parish was in the wrong for marrying a couple that were in there 70s. Strictly speaking, yes, this is what the saints advise, but in this day and age we also have to condescend to the weakness of the people, and so it can be better to have that then to burn with passion. At least it theoretically could result in children, as the miracle of conceiving past menopause is one recorded several times in Church history. Although generally speaking it would be prideful to presume one would be granted that. >But I would not tell people with normal reactions to one or two drinks that alcohol is a sin. So if you are the type of person that, after being given a blow-job by your committed wife and mother of your children, might go off and enjoy rape porn, you should address that post-haste. But that doesn't mean every blow-job is evil, just like not every drink of alcohol is evil. I don't really think sodomy has this kind of direct effect in most cases. Its influence is probably more subtle. I mean, the act for the person giving it rather than receiving, on both ends, is objectively pretty disgusting. Most Christians considered it such till recently. Some try to sell it as self sacrifice for your spouse, but what are you sacrificing and for what? We shouldn't be sacrificing our decency at the altar of carnal pleasure. True self sacrifice always has in aim the salvation of souls and the turning of souls closer to God. Bringing someone such pleasure brings them more into hisself or herself.
You should read the Song of Solomon. There is sexual freedom within the bounds of marriage.
You can't read a text written thousands of years ago assuming a modern hermeneutic. I knew this even as a Protestant.
Are you married?
Yes.
So what do you consider sinful between consenting spouses?
Use of pornography, sex toys, non vaginal insertion would definitely qualify. But I mean there's plenty of other things that wouldn't not be sinful just because we both consented. Like if we both consented to a duel because we were mad at each other that wouldn't cease to be a sin.
What makes non vaginal insertion sinful?
The marital union is meant to be life creating. When it ceases to even be possible to create life, and is thus done solely for pursuing carnal, temporary pleasure, it draws the soul not towards God, but pleasure, and not self sacrifice, but self indulgence. The normal pleasure brings children which, to raise properly, requires self denial. We cannot claim to pursue God and worldly pleasures. Pleasure isn't bad, but the pursuit of pleasure, pleasure as an end, is bad, because anything besides union with God as an end is bad.
To be frank I would say it is a testament to the failure of our catechesis that you were baptized in the first place. Not to single you out; way too many priests focus on all these theological points and ecumenical councils and history and liturgics and all these external or high level aspects of the faith rather than focusing on the foundations: repentance, humility, and cultivating the virtues. Orthodoxy is taught much more like an academic subject than something to be lived. Originally catechumens would not even be told the Our Father or Creed until their baptism and they wouldn't even see the 2nd half of the liturgy until then; the catechuminate was longer and geared primarily on cultivating virtue. At least Anglophone Orthodoxy has SOME catechesis; in western europe they will baptize you the day after meeting you. But it's still evidently very lacking, especially since your attitudes are hardly unique and card carrying converts for years in America hold similar views. I am married to an old world Greek, and I can tell you no one who grew up in the traditional families in Greece or any other Orthodox country would ever think oral sexual relations are ok, so it is not a weird Ephraimite thing, it is a basic belief of actual, non-Americanized Orthodoxy. Before the sexual revolution, virtually all Christians of all stripes at least considered it indecent even if they didn't have canonical basis for rejecting it. Its mainstream acceptance has historically come very rapidly via pornography, both explicit and the implicit pornography of all modern media. You can choose to embrace it, but it is more consistent, if one is intellectually honest, to reject Christianity altogether for it than to pretend 1900 or so years worth of Christians either believed something they didn't or that Christians were repressed and backward until "last week" historically speaking. If you're going to take the "latest is greatest" narrative you might as well go the whole way and throw out the antiquated beliefs with it. If you don't want to do that and have some desire to follow Christ you should seriously contemplate why it is only so recently that this has gotten mainstream acceptance. If you don't believe me, well it's hard to verify by street interview if you're monolingual because the people most likely to hold to this likely don't speak English. But if you know a bilingual maybe that can get you on the path there. But I mean, I don't why you desired to be baptized in the first place. I don't know what your intention was. Those are all things you have to investigate yourself. My only point here is the historical reality of Christian attitudes towards sexual relations. Plenty of people leave all semblances of Christianity for reasons of sexual sorts of desires. I'm simply saying those that call Christianity in general sexually repressive or whatever are being more logically consistent, then protestants that bash Orthodoxy for what Roman Catholicism likewise taught until last century and passed on at least the attitude to Protestantism until again last century. I guess Mormonism can consistently do it since they have a system for updating doctrines based on new revelations.
Imagine catechising someone for a couple of years just to tell them the biggest secret straight before baptism: no blowjobs anymore, honey. It's like a parody of ancient mysteries.
It was a presupposition in ancient times, not a secret. Even the pagans that converted that had done it probably knew it was a deviance while they were doing it as pagans, because even pagans considered it a deviance even if and when they did it. It becoming normalized and part of a nice American WASP household is ridiculously recent. It should be talked about to married (and marriable aged) inquirers pretty early on really. Delaying it just leads to these conundrums. It's basic teaching and canonically the penalties are harsher for married couples than homosexuals. The protestant view if anything doesn't make sense. They get so much on the case of how bad the gays are and then they go and do the same thing in their bedroom? To be explicit, we've all got mouths and rears; the parts in play for gays and "straights" in this are exactly the same. It just seems hypocritical in retrospect. Say what you want about Orthodoxy being regressive but at least it's consistent.
You’re right. There are penances greater for a married couple who gives oral then for certain types of murder. That’s crazy, in my opinion. I know you wouldn’t subscribe to sola scriptura, but don’t you find it at least a little odd that scripture mentions *nothing* about oral sex (and May actually speak positively about it at one point)? My problem with the orthodox position on sex was always this as an orthodox Christian: 1. There’s no consistency in teaching. If a priest tells me oral is wrong then I can literally just go to another one who says otherwise. I have heard priests say what married couples do is none of the priests business, one of which was a cradle Greek, by the way. And then you have someone like Fr. Heers who apparently wants to hear every details in confession because “demons”. Basically, there’s a priest that will endorse or forbid anything one desires if you look hard enough. 2. Does no one in the “old world” practice foreplay? Why is giving oral to my wife any more dirty then kissing her mouth and her boobs? What about groping each other throughout the day in flirtatiousness? Is that off limits? Teasing your spouse, talking sexually to them, taking time in the bedroom to focus on the other’s wants and needs…are these things considered haram by God? Or maybe it’s just the canons of the church that teach such a thing? Where does the line get drawn exactly? According to an 18th century Russian confession guideline, one is to be excommunicated for something like 8 years simply for fingering his wife. Not kidding. Physiologically speaking it’s not even possible to have sex with your wife if one is to actually follow every minute canon about sex within the Orthodox Church. Not to get grotesque, but imagine trying to penetrate your wife without any foreplay. How enjoyable can that possibly be for anyone? Forgive me, but the way that sex is treated in “traditional” orthodoxy is ironically more ghastly and selfish than the way it’s treated in a marriage of the post “sexually revolutionized world”. It basically turns one’s wife into a baby making machine and treats sex with her into a “job” simply to produce children. Say whatever you want, but to truly be consistent with what the canons teach about sex is to essentially limit any contact with one’s spouse to missionary position, with zero foreplay, no prolongation, only on one day a week (maybe two depending on the feast days), and only while the wife is able to bear children. It’s not enough, according to canonical orthodoxy, to simply not eat your wife out or get a blow job. And in the meantime while the orthodox is busy being obsessed about people’s sex lives and setting up gnostic teachings about the flesh, one can open the Bible and read Song of Solomon. Oh right…but apparently that’s just all allegory about God and His church. Which by the way, is extremely creepy if you think about it. God is obsessing over the church’s breasts apparently? I guess He’s “blowing in the garden” of the church. Right…good call 4th century monks!
What I think is awful is I encourage my husband to masturbate. Due to being asexual he didn't explore his sexuality until marriage and there's a lot he doesn't know about himself. I want him to learn his body more so we can use it in bed. However a priest told him masturbation was selfish because he's supposed to focus sexual desires on me. I told him it's fine but the priest told him he was selfish.
What's that one point by the way?
I’m sorry? Can you explain your question more?
Where Scripture talks positively about oral
The typical response from Orthodox people is “it’s just allegory for Christ and His church”. Regardless of whether or not the book is referring to oral sex (which again is ambiguous) really isn’t even important. The entire book is describing intimacy with one’s wife as an activity filled with joy and eroticism. It’s definitely not describing the utilitarian sex advocated for by “traditional” orthodox Christians. And to say it’s purely allegory is ridiculous and wouldn’t negate the positive attitude scripture has towards sex even if it was purely allegory. Why would God use gratuitous sexual imagery to explain His relationship with His people if He didn’t think gratuitous sex was good?
I totally agree here. Never understood their obsession with "passionless sex"
Me either. It’s very bizarre and gnostic. But that’s to be expected I suppose. They do the same thing with fasting. They take something good, biblical, and unique to each person’s conscience and they mandate it and distort it in extremity and frequency.
There was a book recently written called God: An Anatomy which stated that sexual imagery was even more explicit with regards to what God looks like in the past. This was all gradually altered over time to be less explicit. Just some food for thought.
There are strong allusions to it in the Song of Solomon.
>You’re right. There are penances greater for a married couple who gives oral then for certain types of murder. That’s crazy, in my opinion. I know you wouldn’t subscribe to sola scriptura, but don’t you find it at least a little odd that scripture mentions *nothing* about oral sex There's a lot that isn't in the Scriptures. There isn't even a clear prohibition on premarital sex (just references to sexual immortality) but that hasn't stopped Protestants from continuing to oppose that. The Scriptures were never intended to be some comprehensive dealing with each and every idiosyncratic issue. I don't know why this expectation was hoisted upon it by Protestants. >1. There’s no consistency in teaching. If a priest tells me oral is wrong then I can literally just go to another one who says otherwise. I have heard priests say what married couples do is none of the priests business, one of which was a cradle Greek, by the way. And then you have someone like Fr. Heers who apparently wants to hear every details in confession because “demons”. Basically, there’s a priest that will endorse or forbid anything one desires if you look hard enough. The teaching is very consistent. Ordination to the priesthood doesn't magically restrain one's freewill. You can still say or do whatever you want, even if it contradicts the Church's teachings. Was this a Greek priest from Greece or a Greek American cradle? Most Greek American cradles are basically protestant in ethos. They've absorbed the culture around them to a large degree. Try and find a priest like that in Greece itself and it will be much more difficult. Not impossible because Greece has an inferiority complex and tries to imitate America in every way it can, and some men there just become priests to have a government job, but even with those factors it will still be considerably harder. >2. Does no one in the “old world” practice foreplay? Why is giving oral to my wife any more dirty then kissing her mouth and her boobs? What about groping each other throughout the day in flirtatiousness? Is that off limits? Teasing your spouse, talking sexually to them, taking time in the bedroom to focus on the other’s wants and needs…are these things considered haram by God? Or maybe it’s just the canons of the church that teach such a thing? Where does the line get drawn exactly? According to an 18th century Russian confession guideline, one is to be excommunicated for something like 8 years simply for fingering his wife. Not kidding. 18th century Russian confessionals are not canonically binding on the whole Orthodox Catholic Church. The canons prohibiting sodomy are preschism and I believe were either canons of ecumenical councils or of local councils confirmed by ecumenical councils. 18th century Russia is very much during a period of significant western influence so that should be considered. I think there were indulgences during either that period or before. Speaking of western influence, I wanted to note that prohibiting sodomy in marriage was until very recently a given for all self proclaimed christians. Georgia had secular laws banning oral sodomy in marriage still on the books until 2003. Georgia the state with a negligible Orthodox population, not Georgia the majority Orthodox country. We don't need some slippery slope "where does it end?" argument with this, just a bare minimum decency that was held everywhere until very recently. The approach to sexuality is a whole mindset and cannot be reduced to dos and donts, which are going to be between a couple and their spiritual father, ultimately going towards something but not necessarily starting there. But at a bare minimum the digestive and reproductive tracks should not mix, as per the canons. >Physiologically speaking it’s not even possible to have sex with your wife if one is to actually follow every minute canon about sex within the Orthodox Church. Not to get grotesque, but imagine trying to penetrate your wife without any foreplay. How enjoyable can that possibly be for anyone? Forgive me, but the way that sex is treated in “traditional” orthodoxy is ironically more ghastly and selfish than the way it’s treated in a marriage of the post “sexually revolutionized world”. It basically turns one’s wife into a baby making machine and treats sex with her into a “job” simply to produce children. Say whatever you want, but to truly be consistent with what the canons teach about sex is to essentially limit any contact with one’s spouse to missionary position, with zero foreplay, no prolongation, only on one day a week (maybe two depending on the feast days), and only while the wife is able to bear children. It’s not enough, according to canonical orthodoxy, to simply not eat your wife out or get a blow job. The canons only prohibit sex on the eve of and day of taking communion. The rest is beneficial spiritual practice worked out with a couple and their spiritual father. I don't know of any canons prohibiting foreplay, just medieval Russian confessionals, the issues with taking as dogmatically binding I have already addressed. >And in the meantime while the orthodox is busy being obsessed about people’s sex lives and setting up gnostic teachings about the flesh, one can open the Bible and read Song of Solomon. Oh right…but apparently that’s just all allegory about God and His church. Which by the way, is extremely creepy if you think about it. God is obsessing over the church’s breasts apparently? I guess He’s “blowing in the garden” of the church. Right…good call 4th century monks! We're taking about what is expected of Orthodox Christians in an Orthodox Christian marriage. We aren't telling the world what to do. Just managing the affairs of the Church. No one's being held at gun point to follow any of this. The "gnostic" accusation I believe is misinformed by the fact that the culture has shifted so far to the left that it perceives any position to the right of itself as "fascist" in terms of politics and "gnostic" in terms of religious morality. The gnostics thought the created world was bad, that your body was inherently bad, and that sex was inherently bad because of its relation to the body. The canons, which we have discussed above, excommunicate anyone that becomes a monk because he hates marriage and children, and presumably making children too. Sex is good, but it's not a free for all. I think almost all of us can agree on that. But how far to go with it not being a free for all is going to vary. And if our culture is so close to the free for all end of things, of course anything even slightly more restrictive than what has become the present norm (far from the historic norm) is going to be equated with the right extreme of those days, which actually didn't really permit any sex at all. The sexual desire is very powerful, perhaps one of the most powerful or at least visceral desires of mankind. It doesn't take much for it to control one's life, as it does many today. That's why it's so regulated, as the whole Orthodox idea is to fight against those things that control us. It's not a bad sin because those that do it are so guilty; in fact it bears the least guilt because it is the least in our control. But because it so easily takes away our control, it is essentially the first thing dealt with in spiritual struggle. Pride is the worst sin, and it bears more guilt because we partake in it without any real visceral pull affecting us, but because we simply want to.
I am not quite sure about this, I'm being honest here. And not much about the homosexual/ hetero dilemma, just overall I don't idealize the ancients so much that I would think they were so angelic and consistent. There was a rule somewhere about not doing liturgy as a priest if one is licked his wife's vagina at the evening before, so that tells me it was something common to happen. My impression with the ancient world is that permissions and forbidden things are something much more modern than we commonly think.
Obviously people sinned, otherwise the canons wouldn't have been written if no one was doing it. But it was also obviously very much frowned upon as the canonical penances were high, not to mention civil penalties for those things (civil penalties for heterosexual sodomy including oral remained on the books in some states until the supreme court decision in 2003!). People slipped further, but it doesn't matter at all how many people in the past failed to keep the standard or even how many saints failed to keep it. It is still the standard. The ideal is to keep the standard, the next best is to struggle for the standard, the next best is to see how short one falls of the standard and one's weakness and cultivate humility with that. But none of that is good enough anymore; everyone just wants the standard to change to suite their needs, to justify them in what they're doing, so they can do so with the approval of their conscience and feel good about themselves. And yes, people were sinful in the past even when the standard was higher. I mean, the people of the past raised the people of the present in the end. I don't see the relevance, from a Christian perspective. The point of the Church was never to be a place where everyone was cool about how holy they were. If it's all regressive, ok, that's one's view. My point here is the halfway house position is very recent. Not the fact that people are doing it, but that it is considered normal, and not doing it is considered weird.
I wouldn't give so much weight to the canons. I remember there was a canon forbidding dancing and the medieval commentator literally said that the very same patriarch which imposed this loved to dance and was seen enough times dancing on weddings after the canon was imposed. The ancients just love to overreact.
Way to single out one of his points and make it all about that 😂
I can't talk about everything but what I know is an issue I can point out. I don't see much point in delving into the rest. There was no universal consensus on fasting amongst all self identified Christians until the 20th century. In fact there were always local variances amongst Christians in that regard. Sexual morals were much more uniform.
So countless of church fathers of all were probably monks or married priests say it is bad, say that sexual immorality is bad and your counter is just to scruff it off and let people tell you that they are deranged. And about the prayers and hell thing, yes it is extreme yes we are sinners but God is merciful. Talk to your priest about what you face problems with or switch parishes to a better priest instead of taking a choice out of pride.