Is it considered a sin to eat food that tastes good?
I came across this this when going through a Wiki-rabbit hole and saw that "eating tasty rather than plain food" was a cause for condemnation. I'm aware that Clement of Alexandria's "The Christian Use of Food" says similar things so I'm curious if this is a universal.
I don't recall that work by Clement of Alexandria. Where might I find it?
In any case, the reference says, "choosing," not "eating." There's a difference between going for dainties over healthful food and accepting food proffered by others. Further, it probably should not be taken strictly literally; more on that anon. In a sense, though, choosing rich foods can be considered gratification of the passion of gluttony; it is markedly easier to over-eat when one enjoys the food, after all. Also, rich foods can stir the loins, which is why ascetics in particular try to avoid them. However, marital sex certainly gratifies the flesh, and is not the slightest bit condemned in scripture. Thus, some discernment is IMO required. You don't let your kids choose dessert over the main course, do you? You may let them have dessert after cleaning their plate, but not lieu of that.
Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom
I don't recall that work by Clement of Alexandria. Where might I find it?
In any case, the reference says, "choosing," not "eating." There's a difference between going for dainties over healthful food and accepting food proffered by others. Further, it probably should not be taken strictly literally; more on that anon. In a sense, though, choosing rich foods can be considered gratification of the passion of gluttony; it is markedly easier to over-eat when one enjoys the food, after all. Also, rich foods can stir the loins, which is why ascetics in particular try to avoid them. However, marital sex certainly gratifies the flesh, and is not the slightest bit condemned in scripture. Thus, some discernment is IMO required. You don't let your kids choose dessert over the main course, do you? You may let them have dessert after cleaning their plate, but not lieu of that.
That makes some sense though I do struggle at times with discerning if a given exhortation is meant to be taken literally. Clement in particular seems fairly straightforward in literalness with his condemnation of spices and other ingredients.
This isn't meant to be a stupid question, but how do you define "passion" in a religious sense? I've seen the term used here a number of times but haven't been able to nail down an exact definition. I've seen it defined as strong emotion or excitement but I suspect it may not be so straightforward. I know as a football fan, you allow yourself to get emotionally invested/excited in games, for instance, so does it relate to a moderation of said emotions?
For what was given to everyone for the use of all, you have taken for your exclusive use. The earth belongs not to the rich, but to everyone. - Ambrose, 4th century AD
All cruelty springs from weakness. - Seneca the Younger
That makes some sense though I do struggle at times with discerning if a given exhortation is meant to be taken literally. Clement in particular seems fairly straightforward in literalness with his condemnation of spices and other ingredients.
Clement of Alexandria is complicated. As far as I can tell, he is generally not venerated as a saint in Orthodoxy. I do not often see his writings quoted as authoritative.
This isn't meant to be a stupid question, but how do you define "passion" in a religious sense? I've seen the term used here a number of times but haven't been able to nail down an exact definition. I've seen it defined as strong emotion or excitement but I suspect it may not be so straightforward. I know as a football fan, you allow yourself to get emotionally invested/excited in games, for instance, so does it relate to a moderation of said emotions?
Well, strictly speaking, I probably shouldn't. The ideal of passionlessness is to be equally unaffected by praise or condemnation. Needless to say, it's rarely met. I do get emotionlly invested in games, but not to the point of breaking something or losing self-control. Monks don't watch football.
Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom
This isn't about "plurality of interpretations"; this is about "private interpretation".
You seem to be under the illusion that you are somehow above this interpretative process. The fact of the matter is that you engaged in exegeting biblical passages and weighing theological arguments and so forth when you converted to Orthodoxy -- which constitutes your personalized (or private) interpretative process. Make no mistake that it was you who made the decision through personal investigation and analysis.
And, yes, Mr. Stamenkovic failed repeatedly by reading into the scriptures his private interpretation.
Mr. Stamenkovic is being true to his ultimate authority -- the scriptures. If you can prove to him that his interpretation is erroneous through exegetical argumentation, then he should stand corrected, like a good Protestant.
Sure.
This follows a 3-sentence synopsis of how the NT was written. It is wholly an argument from what he believes to be true and is unsupported by what precedes it. All he did here was baldly assert what he believes.
OK.
This manages to combine two fallacies, burning a strawman and argument from incredulity.
But do you think that the Apostolic teaching contained within the scriptures is sufficient for life and godliness so that the man of God may be complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work?
Any careful reader of Scripture will notice that he is wrong in at least one of those cases - to wit, anointing the sick.
Most pertinently:
Anointing with oil was a standard cure in NT times. It is the height of ignorance to argue that it didn't occur.
I think he would acknowledge those passages. The question he is asking: Do the Orthodox sacraments literally line up with the practices performed and decreed in the bible?
He has something of a point with chrismation, which is merely a different way of doing the same thing - to give the Holy Spirit, which was done via the laying on of hands in NT times. Harping on the outward form is a little petty, especially as it is a practice which most Protestants have dropped entirely. It's okay to quit doing something, but not to do it in a different manner?
If you can prove to a Protestant from the scriptures that laying on of hands ought to be practiced in order to receive the Holy Spirit, then that Protestant would be bound to adopt said practice. Eph. 1:13-14 and Gal. 3:2-3 would need to factor in here however.
No, that's his interpretation of those verses. Does he imagine that the Orthodox never noticed these texts before?
Yes of course he is submitting his interpretation, in light of his personal commitment to rightly divide the word of truth.
This is an argument from silence. It assumes that it cannot have come from tradition passed down orally, it equivocates somewhat in that Mary is indeed referred to as a virgin in Mat. 1:23 and Luke 1:27, and then makes another statement from silence. Yes, the oldest remaining evidence of "Theotokos" is from Origen in the third century. However, in the written instances before evidence is widely available, it is never defended - just used. The only condemnation of the term prior to modern times is by Nestorius, who was cast out as a heretic for doing so. Note that the term "trinity" is never used in scripture, yet Protestants have no issue with that. Double standard much?
Stamenkovic is highlighting the biblical portrait of Mary and contrasting it to the exalted status she is given in Orthodox and Roman circles. He finds no good reason to believe that such tradition has it's roots in Apostolic witness.
There's a whole host of things wrong with this. First, I have yet to see Protestants show respect to anyone between the apostles and Martin Luther, a span of 1400 years!
Of course that is demonstrably false.
Second, in his arguments he deliberately conflates worship/adoration of God and the veneration of saints, which is an argument Orthodoxy has vehemently disclaimed for something like 1300 years.
Where does he make this conflation?
Thirdly, he passes over key passages in defense of prayers to the saints like Heb. 12:1 (which shows the saints are aware of what passes here), Rev. 6:9-11 (which shows the martyred saints crying out to God, and God responding), and Rev. 5:8/8:4 (showing the prayers of the saints rising like the smoke of incense before God).
Now of course Protestants have seen these verses before, and of course we disagree with The Orthodox and Roman interpreters, and believe you are reading into the text a doctrine that simply isn't there.
Stamenkovic relies on Ralph Woodrow's Babylonian Mystery Religion: Ancient and Modern....
OK, but does Stamenkovic agree with everything in the book? Perhaps there is some truth to pagan influence on Marian doctrine over the centuries, and the book gets that part right(?)
Are you more interested in reading something which supports your POV, however sloppily, or finding out the truth?
In the OP I stated that refutations from Orthodox believers are welcomed.
This is hardly a problem isolated to Orthodoxy; many Protestant believers are equally "nominally and culturally religious and lack true faith rooted in the one and only gospel."
Perhaps the reality of nominalism and mere cultural-belief present in all churches and denominations can help us better discern the global body of Christ...
If he's worried about people finding the truth, he needs to stop using deceitful arguments to "help" them.
Just as Paul opposed Peter at Antioch, it seems Stamenkovic is willing to confront fellow believers when they are not acting "consistently with the truth of the gospel".
I don't recall that work by Clement of Alexandria. Where might I find it?
In any case, the reference says, "choosing," not "eating." There's a difference between going for dainties over healthful food and accepting food proffered by others. Further, it probably should not be taken strictly literally; more on that anon. In a sense, though, choosing rich foods can be considered gratification of the passion of gluttony; it is markedly easier to over-eat when one enjoys the food, after all. Also, rich foods can stir the loins, which is why ascetics in particular try to avoid them. However, marital sex certainly gratifies the flesh, and is not the slightest bit condemned in scripture. Thus, some discernment is IMO required. You don't let your kids choose dessert over the main course, do you? You may let them have dessert after cleaning their plate, but not lieu of that.
Well though quite frankly, its silly to think that food is not meant to be enjoyed though. it should be enjoyed. My understanding of gluttony is that its a type pf greed and selfishness. It also uses food in place of other needs.
A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
George Bernard Shaw
Well though quite frankly, its silly to think that food is not meant to be enjoyed though. it should be enjoyed. My understanding of gluttony is that its a type pf greed and selfishness. It also uses food in place of other needs.
Yes, God created food to be received with thanksgiving/joy by those who believe and know the truth. Some human commands have an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh; indeed, it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace.
Yes, God created food to be received with thanksgiving/joy by those who believe and know the truth.
Absolutely. Yet God created sex good, too. That doesn't mean it can't be abused.
Some human commands have an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh; indeed, it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace.
You're dangerously confident in your ignorance.
I'll try to get to your other post in a bit.
Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom
You seem to be under the illusion that you are somehow above this interpretative process. The fact of the matter is that you engaged in exegeting biblical passages and weighing theological arguments and so forth when you converted to Orthodoxy -- which constitutes your personalized (or private) interpretative process. Make no mistake that it was you who made the decision through personal investigation and analysis.
Not really. Perhaps you missed where I said it was not my intention to convert?
Mr. Stamenkovic is being true to his ultimate authority -- the scriptures. If you can prove to him that his interpretation is erroneous through exegetical argumentation, then he should stand corrected, like a good Protestant.
I've met precious few "good Protestants" by that criterion.
Repeating this dreck doesn't make it any better an argument. It is blatant misrepresentation compounded by argument from outrage.
But do you think that the Apostolic teaching contained within the scriptures is sufficient for life and godliness so that the man of God may be complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work?
You realize that Paul was referring to the Old Testament, yes?
Originally Posted by OBP
Any careful reader of Scripture will notice that he is wrong in at least one of those cases - to wit, anointing the sick.
Most pertinently:
I think he would acknowledge those passages. The question he is asking: Do the Orthodox sacraments literally line up with the practices performed and decreed in the bible?
No, he's not asking that question. He made an emphatic assertion which turned out to be unequivocally wrong. You might at least acknowledge that, or there's no point in continuing this. Assuming he is asking that question, he's making an argument from silence.
If you can prove to a Protestant from the scriptures that laying on of hands ought to be practiced in order to receive the Holy Spirit, then that Protestant would be bound to adopt said practice. Eph. 1:13-14 and Gal. 3:2-3 would need to factor in here however.
You've shown abundantly that you're quite willing to handwave away any interpretation which doesn't already square with yours. In this case, you've decided, along with most Protestants, that since it's not always used, it should never be used.
Yes of course he is submitting his interpretation, in light of his personal commitment to rightly divide the word of truth.
He's not simply submitting his interpretation, he's pretending that it is OBviously the ONLY interpretation, not even bothering to interact with any others.
Stamenkovic is highlighting the biblical portrait of Mary and contrasting it to the exalted status she is given in Orthodox and Roman circles. He finds no good reason to believe that such tradition has it's roots in Apostolic witness.
...because he's a priori assumed his conclusion. He also misrepresents the exalted status she is given. If he were an honest man, he would not do that. I'm confident he knows better; he'd have to, if he'd bothered to read all the Orthodox material he cites.
He sort of completely failed to prove this bald assertion.
Originally Posted by OBP
There's a whole host of things wrong with this. First, I have yet to see Protestants show respect to anyone between the apostles and Martin Luther, a span of 1400 years!
Of course that is demonstrably false.
My statement is only slightly hyperbolic. In my 35 years as a Protestant, I do not recall a pastor or bible study leader ever citing older than, say, Oswald Chambers or Dwight Moody. That wasn't old enough for me, so acquired Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Bible because it was old. On rare occasions, you might find someone citing Augustine, but that's chancy because Catholics love him so much.
Where does he make this conflation?
He doesn't so much state the conflation as ignore the Orthodox distinction completely. Again, he has to know better if he's read Orthodox sources.
Now of course Protestants have seen these verses before, and of course we disagree with The Orthodox and Roman interpreters, and believe you are reading into the text a doctrine that simply isn't there.
Then why didn't he actually deal with them? One would think that, for maximum effect, one would deal with the opponent's strongest arguments, not ignore them.
OK, but does Stamenkovic agree with everything in the book? Perhaps there is some truth to pagan influence on Marian doctrine over the centuries, and the book gets that part right(?)
Immaterial. He cites it as an authority - and the only authority - for that assertion.
In the OP I stated that refutations from Orthodox believers are welcomed.
You did. Your responses, unfortunately, do not bear that out.
Perhaps the reality of nominalism and mere cultural-belief present in all churches and denominations can help us better discern the global body of Christ...
Nice dodge.
Just as Paul opposed Peter at Antioch, it seems Stamenkovic is willing to confront fellow believers when they are not acting "consistently with the truth of the gospel".
I'd be fine with that if he did that in an honest manner. Stamenkovic is not, however, doing so, for reasons I've stated above. Get a better source. This one's not worth any more of my time.
Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom
Originally Posted by KingsGambit
Reply With Quote
complicated. As far as I can tell, he is generally not venerated as a saint in Orthodoxy. I do not often see his writings quoted as authoritative.
The ideal of passionlessness is to be equally unaffected by praise or condemnation. Needless to say, it's rarely met. I do get emotionlly invested in games, but not to the point of breaking something or losing self-control. Monks don't watch football.
