Pope and Kim Davis

[gzt]

oh yeah it is. this is one big topic in our Christology and anthropology course. it absolutely is a sin, since it misses the mark of what God intended man to be.

So is menstruation and pain in childbirth a sin? God did not intend those and they are consequences of the fall...

 

[rusmeister]

So is menstruation and pain in childbirth a sin? God did not intend those and they are consequences of the fall...

I think we do need to distinguish between the natural and universal consequences of the Fall, and the importance of our will choosing for or against those consequences. we generally use "sin" to refer to our conscious choices, and if everything is sin, then there is nothing particular about sin.

At any rate, sin as something we commit is not the same as the consequences of sin. So linguistically, I'm in agreement with you, GZ, insofar as I understand what we are talking about.

 

[jckstraw72]

gotta distinguish between blameless and blameworthy passions. even Christ Himself took on blameless passions such as hunger and aging.

 

[gzt]

More to the point, if we're going to go down this line, all of our experience of "sexuality" and specifically "attraction" is fallen. If we're going to say same-sex attraction is a sin because it misses the mark, we have to say the same of our experience of opposite-sex attraction

 

[rusmeister]

Well, I, at any rate, am not saying that. I have only been saying that we have begun accepting wrong language, literally over the past twenty-five years, into the Church, and it behooves us to learn how language can be right or wrong, express Orthodox truth or damnable falsehood.

 

[ArmyMatt]

So is menstruation and pain in childbirth a sin? God did not intend those and they are consequences of the fall...

no, those are consequences of the fall as you rightly said. homosexual desire involves the will, the pain and menstruation don't.

 

[ArmyMatt]

More to the point, if we're going to go down this line, all of our experience of "sexuality" and specifically "attraction" is fallen. If we're going to say same-sex attraction is a sin because it misses the mark, we have to say the same of our experience of opposite-sex attraction

no, because Adam experienced attraction prior to the Fall, just not in a lustful and carnal way. so we don't have to say that about opposite-sex attraction. it is easy to turn to lust and sin, but that attraction was with us in the Garden. just not the same way we know now

 

[gzt]

no, because Adam experienced attraction prior to the Fallw

Citation needed - I mean, the Fathers are divided about whether humans reproduced by sexual intercourse or some other way before the Fall, I think at the very least our experience of attraction is certainly up for questioning. St Augustine, for one, says there was no concupiscence... Whether or not that is the case, however, there is a point that attraction as we experience it is only through the wound of the Fall and therefore tainted by sin, whether homosexual or heterosexual or other.

Also, above, you're waffling, as desire is not the same as attraction, which does not require the will.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Citation needed

I'll look and ask my dogmatics professor. off the top of my head I can't think, jckstraw would know better than I would. but I will look.

Whether or not that is the case, however, there is a point that attraction as we experience it is only through the wound of the Fall and therefore tainted by sin, whether homosexual or heterosexual or other.

no disagreement here.

Also, above, you're waffling, as desire is not the same as attraction.

sorry then, I thought they were being defined the same here. my bad then. could you clarify the difference?

 

[ArmyMatt]

and reading what I said, I might be off, or might need to tweek it a bit. lemme get back to you, gzt.

 

[gzt]

Well, I mean, we need to be careful, since some people use "desire" as attraction, some use it as lust, and the scriptural epithumeo is translated as both desire and lust but is definitely stronger than "attraction" since Our Lord says it's very bad, so here it is perhaps safest to specifically state it as lust vs attraction to be clearest and avoid desire. Anyway, in the "popular" presentation of temptation and stuff, attraction is then what assaults you, and you're not blameless when you entertain the attack, but it's really only a "sin" at the consent stage (the next one down the line). You don't have these logismoi floating around before the Fall, either heterosexual or homosexual. In St Augustine's account, if I recall, sexual intercourse before the Fall (he believes in sex before the Fall) is governed entirely by our reason without any of this attraction business entering into it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

yeah, and I see your point, so lemme ask my dogmatics prof and I'll get back to you

 

[ArmyMatt]

so I was given some writings by St Paisios of Mt Athos, and he basically says that the attraction between Adam and Even prior to the Fall was the same as Sts Joachim and Anna. it was there, but completely dispassionate. so it is possible for straight people to be attracted to each other in a Godly way, completely devoid of any sin. so I think attraction as almost all of us experience it is tainted by the Fall because of the passions.

 

[jckstraw72]

could you quote St. Paisios for us? gotta be honest - that sounds odd to me.

 

[ArmyMatt]

could you quote St. Paisios for us? gotta be honest - that sounds odd to me.

what about it sounds odd? and I will post a quote tomorrow once I can find one. I know this kinda stuff is more your lane

 

[ArmyMatt]

so, St Paisios doesn't outright say it, but in chapter 1 of some book (I only have scans, so I dunno the title), he basically says that there is a physical, but blameless and dispassionate attraction between men and women. I am gonna assume it is his book on child raising