Some friends and I asked our priest about this, because lots of Christian cultures have blood pudding or sausage as part of their culinary heritage. He said they're wrong to do that, simple as. Just a pagan hangover I guess.
-
ChristIsKing.eu has moved to ChristIsKing.cc - see the announcement for more details. If you don't know your password PM a mod on Element or via a temporary account here to confirm your username and email.
Are nocturnal emissions/wet dreams sinful?
- Thread starter TheSurveyor
- Start date
"Whoever is polluted by a nocturnal emission, even if without any memory of the dirty thoughts, may feel sordid deeply within himself; nevertheless let him attribute this to his own fault, as though he had been tempted, and immediately cleanse his uncleanness by tears."
St. Isidore of Seville
St. Isidore of Seville
Ok, so Acts 15 is about the followers of Christ turning away from the Jewish laws such as circumcision and unclean foods/acts etc.
This was because, up to this point, the followers of Christ were Jewish and continued with the Jewish rules they grew up with.
However, there were now a lot of non-Jews turning to Christ and Paul and others realised that they could not force Jewish rules on non-Jews when Christ explicitly said those rules meant nothing, the only way to salvation was through him.
They decided that some things should still be outlawed and those were things that were linked to animal sacrifice, including the consumption of blood.
Jesus has himself stated that the consumption of any food would not be a bar to salvation in, for example, Mark ch7 v19.
It would appear that the ban on eating blood was something that was to appease the Jews as they found the practices of the non-Jews in regard to food as particularly disagreable.
Later, in Romans chapter 14 Paul tells us not to judge people on what they eat.
So, in conclusion the original rule against eating blood, particularly from a strangled (ritually killed) animal was due to its links to pagan sacrifice rituals, and how it annoyed the Jewish followers of Christ.
Later on it was seen as a cultural thing, to be avoided around touchy Jews.
Then it was seen as something that should not be worried about, let alone enforced.
As any blood you eat now would have nothing to do with a pagan ritual, then you should consider it ok to eat, especially if it is your peoples heritage/culture to eat that food.
This is definitely not the Eastern Orthodox understanding, for those wondering. I'm not here to argue, you can have you opinion, just letting people reading this know.
St. Thomas Aquinas said that wet dreams are not sinful, because in a dream state we dont have the ability to use our reason to avoid the sin.
Fair enough, but when Jesus explicitly states something in the bible, and his apostles likewise follow suit, I will follow what they say, rather than a man, from any denomination.
This is something that Jesus explicitly states, and therefore, to me, is not open to interpretation.
The basic Orthodox approach is that even if it isn't a sin per se, it's still the result and manifestation of sinful impulses and tendencies that the person has not yet been cleansed from - hence, St. Isidore's encouragement to weep over it since tears are very cleansing and purifying.
Thanks for the clarification.
I dont agree with the idea that we have sinful "impulses" in us that makes us unclean, that we have to purge ourselves from them. I would say that we either sin, or dont, and that is a conscious decision we make every time we sin, or dont sin, and that is what we must atone for.
However, I can parse what you and others are saying through the lens of your belief now, thanks.
This. I think trying to legalistically calculate which preconditions and circumstances constitute a sin or not is a very weird approach.
I find myself in an interesting situation because I know what a lot of the history and fathers say, but I'm closer to this point of view, especially in the modern age. I'm not using "modern age" as an excuse, I'm referring to how unnatural the age is that we live in. I see quotes about lust from the holy fathers, and that it won't ever stop plaguing you, but I also see this as archetypal in the sense that from my understand of men and women's interactions, especially at this point (anything related to modernity), we flat out would barely have kids if men weren't so "lustful". That's how generally disinterested women are in sex, for the most part. For the most part, it's the context that is so hard to understand, and I've talked about this before. My thoughts on this topic aren't justifying anything, I want to make this clear, but ignoring these realities just seems strange to me. You've got guys going decades without sex now and then you compare this to times where a man would marry young and a 14-16 year old to boot, that's not even apples and oranges, it's something else entirely. I also don't buy that for a lot of guys they aren't more physical and testosterone laden (some, not most) than in the past, when you'd just do labor and eat whenever you could. I'm just being honest, it seems ridiculous to me to compare modern stuff with old women and men forced for long period, or forever to be locked out - with teenagers wives and communities in it together in all the right ways, regardless of survival.
As you state here, this was for people who were outsiders that came into the land of Israel, and it was debated at the time and is debatable now. I would point out that St. Paul's "weak man eats vegetables" is a confirmation of that (that was about other people thinking they were doing better by staying away from possibly sacrificed/idol food).
We don't look at it that way, as it is irrelevant in any case: what you are accountable for is not some static standard across time and space, in general. It's very personal and up to the particular judgment, which of course we don't know clearly, mostly because we're "sinning" all the time.
I do not think it is sinful in itself, but it would mean that you should abstain from Holy Communion if it occurs in the evening before you intend to partake. It also may be the case that they have a cause that is sinful, such as giving into lustful thoughts and looking lustfully at images of women or whatnot during ones day.
What if I consume my own blood? Say, I get a nosebleed and accidentally swallow a bit of the blood, for example? And what about blood transfusions? Technically they involve consuming blood, even if not by ingesting it.
I don't know, except to say that to the extent this principle exists, it is a spiritual one and not a scientific one. IE, it's not immutable and intent matters. For example many Orthodox Fathers warn against partaking in communion unworthily or without proper preparation... in such cases you may not receive the effects that someone properly prepared would.
My post above, by the way, I've noticed is quite similar to that funny article by Anglin someone else posted in another thread, regarding what men can even do or expect in today's environment. Whether he or I am wrong or it's black pilled isn't the point - it's that it's hard to argue and understand the whole situation it's so ridiculous. I think an explanation is that, as I've said before, the "be fruitful and multiply" command isn't implicated in the modern day, or times such as now at least, because forces beyond so many people's control clearly are against that to a maximum. There is a universal part of that command that is good and healthy for the human, of course. This time period, it seems, was ordained in the sense that it's a big test. Many of the details are probably secondary to repenting for all the traps we fall into, but it's a sticky subject to be certain.
Blood pudding is delicious, but I no longer eat it after a discussion with our priest.
I've never heard the term ' nocturnal emission" before, and I had a chuckle when I read it. I've never experienced this, and for the longest time I thought "wet dream" meant to pee'd the bed.
I've never heard the term ' nocturnal emission" before, and I had a chuckle when I read it. I've never experienced this, and for the longest time I thought "wet dream" meant to pee'd the bed.
By your own words you condemn your view that sin is something external act rather than an orientation of being. Is it not why the Lord said that if you look at a woman lustfully, you have committed adultery in your heart. Why would He warn against such things if He didn't want us to be free from them?
[delete]
That is a very Jewish way of viewing both sin and atonement. Not saying that facetiously. The Pharisaical Jews did not believe thoughts or desires could be sinful. They also believed atonement was something that they could accomplish, not something that God accomplishes.