/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>5666

What is the reasoning behind this practice? I remember being exposed to it growing up; some of my family members did it, but I never got how it made sense. Originally, I was taught that some people do it as a way to sacrifice, which never made sense to me as a child because fish is so much more delicious than red meat (very subjective).

During my atheists years, I remember reading something about how the practice came about as a way to encourage people to buy fish on that certain day in order to keep it from going bad, or something like that.

What is the rationale behind eating fish on Friday? Also how do we know that is when Christ was crucified?

>>5667

The tradition isn't to eat fish, it's to not eat meat. Saying eat fish is just a way to accomplish that (most people would have likely just eaten vegetables in the past).

In reference to he logic behind it, I have no idea how we get from Christ dying to not eating meat. It's probably something in refererence the culture of the early church.

>Also how do we know that is when Christ was crucified?

We celebrate his death on Good Friday. Whether it actually occured on a Friday, I am not so sure.

>>5669

That's a good answer, thank you.

>>5667

>. Originally, I was taught that some people do it as a way to sacrifice

It is.

It is about abstaining from eating meat, not about eating fish instead ;^)

Fish would be a Christian symbol too though.

>During my atheists years, I remember reading something about how the practice came about as a way to encourage people to buy fish on that certain day in order to keep it from going bad, or something like that.

That sounds like silly anti-church propaganda.

Fish doesn't grow stale the rest of the week? Why friday?

In the past you either lived at a coast/river/lake or you never ate fish because it is very hard to transport.

If you ate it in the countryside it was not like in OP pic but treated with salt lots of salt or smoke, not very delicious tbh.

>Also how do we know that is when Christ was crucified?

We celebrate his resurrection on sunday.

only eat fish if its kosher

>>5704

That's Talmudic Satanism.

t. JesusFrog

>the Lord was crucified on friday

he was crucified on wednesday evening

he spent 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth

The dislike of meat comes from this:

>meat is produced by sexual reproduction

In disliking the flesh, meat was perceived as the direct result of sex, and consumption of carnal goods was/is perceived as more sinful than eating a salad.

However, fish fuck. There's no logic in this, it's simply a tradition. There's fish every Friday where I work, and it generally stinks up the whole place. I fast on Fridays, though.

>>5812

I can't believe that this is really the rational behind it, it makes no sense. Every tradition begins for a reason, even if eventually its lost in time. Also, I think people probably knew that fish reproduce externally even back then.

>>5837

It is the reason, though. Avoidance of meat was done for this particular reason. It may only date back to the Middle Ages, I am not sure.

People's classification of animals weren't always as they are today. People assumed a whale was a fish, and maybe even people assumed that fish reproduced without sex (since I am not sure how often people were able to see fish copulate, a thing I don't recall having seen in my own life).

I think Lent's avoidance of meat is based on exactly this: fruits of the flesh to be avoided because flesh is sexual and sex is sinful, etc.

>>5812

>>5837

>>5845

Meat is good. It is healthy, it makes you strong, if you work hard you really really need it. It tastes superb. It is extraordinary.

To abstain from it deliberately although you do not need to is a sacrifice. That's it.

Also stop with the sex is sinful rubbish.

>>5845

It sounds a little too far fetched, to be honest. Like some kind of caricature of what these people were. Even the puritans didn't have such a hateful attitude towards sex.

If you can source it though I may be forced to agree.

>>5812

Do you have a source for this idea, other than your own ass?

>>5861

I wasn't aware that my ass had so much in common with Thomas Aquinas, but it sure feels flattered by your high opinion of it.

>“Fasting was instituted by the Church in order to bridle the concupiscences of the flesh, which regard pleasures of touch in connection with food and sex. Wherefore the Church forbade those who fast to partake of those foods which both afford most pleasure to the palate, and besides are a very great incentive to lust. Such are the flesh of animals that take their rest on the earth, and of those that breath the air and their products, such as milk and eggs.” (ST II-II, q. 147, a.8)

This is by far not the only source, as it's a very common thing to know amongst Catholics and it surprises me that you act like I'm making stuff up (again, based on general scorn of my little person). Meat was perceived as the result of sexual reproduction, which it is, and thus, as an enhancer of carnal lust, much the same way as people assuming that eating meat gave you more strength and such.

A casual Googling will deliver much more information on this unexceptional belief.

>>5856

I quoted Aquinas up here, but he's not the only one, by very far. I think you underestimate the hatred of the body that many Christians had throughout the centuries. It borders on Gnosticism quite often, in my humble opinion.

>>5862

>>5863

>Literally quoting Aquinas

Well, that's that then, you've convinced me at least. And you're right, I *did* underestimate the length many will go to in order to avoid lust. Now, that said, upon further reflection this might be a good thing.

The Word of Wisdom councils us to, among other things, eat grains and vegetables abundantly and meat sparingly. Though it doesn't specify that its to reduce lust, this may very well be one of the reasons. Of course, since the WoW is all about health and loving your body, I never would have made that association without stimulus.

This is fascinating, I'll try and look up more about it.

>>5865

>WoW

World of Warcraft?

Apparently, eating meat does make you angrier and lustier, says the article I pilled Aquinas' quote from.

I see no problem with lusting after your wife, though. Even lusting after other females, as long as you don't sex them up, is fine, since it does nothing.

For many Christians, I feel, the war on the body is the most accessible battle they can fight, and the least abstract. Some people like fitness for the discipline of it, and they get something out of being able to respect that discipline, both physically and mentally. I feel it is the same for many religious people, to alleviate guilt or any other sort of unease they have with life: suffering through a self-imposed program to feel better about oneself. I'm always concerned about this because I don't see that as being spiritual in nature. It seems to me to be more of a psychological crutch to feel better about oneself than a true relationship to God, though I don't deny that if that's how someone wants it, then they can have it. I put myself through disciplinary measures but I fail to find spirituality in it.

>>5884

>The thing is, lust is in many contexts an inherently sinful thing.

Debatable. It generally means "to covet" in our translations, and that would be sinful in any context (and that was the meaning of "to lust" in King James'). Mere sexual attraction is never portrayed as sinful in the Bible for all I know; it only is said to be sinful in conjunction with coveting that which is not yours, whether a wife or a camel.

>even thinking about a woman sexually, who isn't your wife, is bad.

If you're a healthy human being, this will happen, provided the lady has any charms relevant to you. You would probably agree that it is better than to feel no sexual attraction to women out of being a homosexual. Sexual attraction is a process in which you have very little control, if any. And I don't mean closing your eyes or looking the other way.

>but its not ideal and a man ought to be locked in a perpetual struggle against those thoughts.

From which you develop mental issues that are potentially threatening to the rest of your psyche. I doubt that any Godly way can lead to such extremities.

>essential to having a good relationship with God.

Certainly, but why this way and not the other? Why can a religious man stare at the beauty of a waterfall and marvel at God's creation, but the same man can't do the same with regards with the beauty of a woman's body? Did He not create both?

>Thus, you have to dominate and maybe even chastise it (depending on the individual, this isn't for everyone) the Natural Man so that the Spiritual Man can flourish.

I've tried this and felt no spiritual growth from it. At best, nothing, at worst, general lack of energy and motivation.

>>Inb4 Gnosticism

>This is different though; like really different.

Yes, but not in the part I meant. Gnostics believe the world to be a trap created by the Demiurge, a false God, and as a result, they hold the world in contempt, and that includes the body.

Christians hold the view that the world is fallen but still God's creation, so their view is mixed but some of the most extreme behaviours concerning the body sound more like hate than respect. Mortification of the flesh and all, which isn't the sole specialty of the Catholics, by the way, plenty of others do it, sometimes in far more extreme measures.

My current opinion on the sex stuff is this: there's precious little of it in Scripture, whenever adultery is mentioned as "lust" it is actually about covetting that which isn't yours, not sex feefees per se; the Bible is far less prudish than commonly believed (Song of Songs, some passages of the OT mentioning donkey dicks and collections of foreskins, etc). Then there is Paul and his warning about "sexual immorality", which I assume to be the same as mentioned in the OT, all of which are acts and not thoughts. It isn't the homosexual who is condemned, it is the man who literally has sex with another man, which is a significant difference.

Man has a natural problem with sex, shown to us from all societies, and it is no surprise that this problem gets tacked on religion; I am just unsure that this is a warranted move. What Christians have done centuries after Christ does not fit anything from Biblical times and most attempts to bend Scripture can be debunked quite simply (Onan, for instance).

I think we tend to project our immaturity onto Scripture and religion to turn it into something to be used for our personal ends, and I don't find that very spiritual or religious. It also tends to take most of a believer's focus and I believe this weakens one's spirituality too.

>>5674

Sunday was chosen by Constantine, it was chosen arbitrarily and is a symbolic affair.

>>5932

A certain day of the week had been associated with the sun for a long time (Sunday's etymology predates Christian Germanic people, for instance). The connection between Jesus and the light (sun) was not lost on early Christians. So it wasn't exactly abitrary.

>>5667

Try reading the bible. It says the sabbath was beginning that night at sundown when he was crucified. Therefore it had to be Friday.

>>5669

>Whether it actually occured on a Friday, I am not so sure.

refer >>6146

>>5941

>>5932

piffle

Sunday is the third day from (and including) the crucifixion on the Friday, therefore the day of the resurrection

Once more, refer >>6146

εντάξει