Arioch wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 9:13 pm
boldilocks wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 10:35 am
Early christians weren't really opposed to pleasure, they were opposed to masturbation, which seems to be pretty common across a large number of religions and cultures, the common idea seeming to be that chronic masturbators become dull, lethargic and/or weird.
Early Christianity was obsessed with martyrdom; suffering and the abasement of the self was considered holy. Priests were (nominally) supposed to renounce sex and all forms of Earthly pleasure. Devout followers routinely fasted or engaged in self-flagellation to become more "pure." Pleasures of the flesh were considered inherently sinful (lust and gluttony included among the "seven deadly sins"), and sexual pleasure was accepted only as an unfortunate side effect of the mandate to procreate. Even thoughts of sex were considered impure and wicked.
Christianity isn't unique in this respect, but as the most popular religion of humanity, it has perhaps had the largest impact on what we consider "human" mores.
Martyrdom was a strategy for dealing with suppression and as a means of propaganda for the faith, obsession is a strange way to put it. They certainly venerated those christians who were martyred, but this was a part of the propaganda effort. There were certainly far more regular and devout christians than there were martyrs.
My understanding was that priestly celibacy in christianity was a more modern invention (ie, middle-ages), although it's certainly true that celibacy among religious monks is common in most religions. Of course, celibacy in christianity would be necessary for priests lest they'd lead women out of marital chastity, so maybe that works both ways. But as I recall you could be married and yet still be ordained a priest.
The idea of sexual pleasure only being accepted as an unfortunate side effect is something I'm not sure where stems from, the discussions among early church fathers seems to be split along the line of sexual pleasure luring people away from god and sexual pleasure expressing that gods love of man is planted in their very being, but I'm not sure how serious that line even was.
Lust and gluttony are quite different from enjoying pleasures of the flesh. It's like saying that enjoying a drink is the same as being a drunk.
And a glutton can also be someone who is particular in how they eat to such an extent that they persistently annoy those around them, according to aquinas. Yet despite this, early christians cooked and brewed to please the flesh, just as later christians did.
Even christian monks who practiced asceticism would still brew and cook with spices that enhanced their meals, even if they also fasted. (And this is also the case in other ascetic sects.)
I think it's important to recognize that there is a difference between
the practice of rigid ascetic self-discipline,
the more regular and relaxed adherence to religious faith,
lying around in the town square trying to stare up women's skirts while jerking your cock.
And that while the last form of total abandonment of any kind of self-discipline was certainly roundly condemned in just about every culture, the first two weren't.