Warring with desire

[Olympiada]

Dear in Christ Brothers and Sisters,

I searched around a bit and decided where to place this thread. I think this is the appropriate place.

I am interested in discussing how to deal with desire outside of marriage. It is obviously inappropriate to desire someone you are not intending to marry. So what to do with this desire? Especially if this is a new virtue for a person. I know about Saint Mary of Egypt and the Harlots of the Desert and the Philokalia and Saint Dorotheus and the Desert Fathers.

I am talking about someone living today. And I am talking about turning around a desire that has already been allowed to develop because I know they should be nipped in the bud. Do any of the church fathers or mothers address this? And if it is a thorn in the flesh than God's grace is sufficient in our weakness. Is that at all. Where to go with that scripture? There has got to be more depth to it than that. My thoughts don't make sense to me so I apologize if they do not make sense to you. That is why I am starting a discussion, in the hopes to gain clarity of mind.

[Owen Jones]

Forgive me, but you are intellectualizing the problem. It is sufficient to simply take the right action, through prayer and meditation on Scripture, and turn off the TV and other media that promote sexual images. The Jesus Prayer, 300 times per day, will work.

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Dear Olympiada:

You raise an interesting question. I think that you should read two books that I have recently read that deal with logismoi, or thoughts. The books are entitled "Confronting and Controlling Thoughts" by Fr. Anthony Coniaris and "Mountain of Silence" by Kyriacos Markides. I highly recommend these books to you.

In regards to your specific question about desire outside of marriage, I think that such desires are not uncommon. I would think that the desire, in and of itself, is not wrong or sinful, but what we do with that desire. Again, the books above deal in detail with these topics, but in sum, there are five stages of logismoi according to the Fathers. They are:

1). Assault: the stage at which a thought or desire enters into our intellect.
2). Interaction: the stage at which we dialogue with the logismos (i.e. should I do this or should I not do this?).
3). Consent: we decide to do whatever the logismos suggests.
4). Captivity: actually committing the act suggested by the logismos.
5). Passion: the logismos has become entrenched in our consciousness.

We essentially have no control over the assault stage. Even the saints are constantly assaulted by evil thoughts--even Christ was assaulted. What matters, and what determines whether or not we sin, is what we do with the logismos. Do we consent and become captive? If so, then the logismos will become a passion and it will be harder to avoid in the future.

It is absolutely essential in the Christian life to learn to deal with, to confront and control, the thoughts. The advice of the Desert Fathers, the Philokalia Fathers, and all others who dealt extensively with the interior life is invaluable. I think that Fr. Anthony Coniaris does an excellent job of placing these spiritual weapons in a modern context.

Aaron

[Olympiada]

Dear Owen,
You are right,I am intellectualizing the problem. So what. I don't own a tv. I like high energy music. I do have a problem. And I do say the Jesus Prayer. And I do pray and meditate on the Scriptures.

Dear Aaron,
Thank you for this book recommendation of Mountain of Silence, my choir director gave it to me and a nun gave it to her! Glory be to God for all things!

Ok so it looks my question is what to do with a thought that has become passion?
And also how do we determined what is an evil thought and what is a good thought? Which gets back to desire outside of marriage. Is it evil to desire someone outside of marraige, someone we have no plans of marrying. Someone we desire to marry but who does not desire to marry us?!

Which Desert Fathers give advice on how to learn to deal with, to confront and control thought? Which Philokalia Fathers? I am ready to learn. Thank you so very much for your response. May you be blessed!
INXC
Olympiada

[Nick S.]

Aaron,

you imply that Christ was assaulted by evil thoughts. But I have been taught that evil could only assault Him from without and is unable to assault Him from his thoughts. Hence, the devil had to appear visibly to him in the wilderness to tempt him. Anyone else have any knowledge about this?

Nick S.

[M.C. Steenberg]

The matters of 'desire' and 'thoughts' are treated by the majority of fathers collected in the first volume of the Philokalia; in particular individuals such as Evagrius and Hesychios. But I think Owen is correct in the general warning that intellectualising such challenges is a massive temptation. The kind of theoretical discussion such fathers produce has to be approached as the reflection on a life of praktike: not as a system of intellectual discourse in its own right, but a means of giving verbal articulation to traditions of inherited ascetical practice. So in a rather direct way (characteristic perhaps of the mentality of the desert), 'Don't do it' is in fact precisely what such writings mean to say; the technical discourse of stages of temptation, combatting passion at each stage, etc., are articulations of the 'how' borne out by such praxis.

I say this as a way of uniting the comments given by Aaron and those of Owen. They in fact balance one another markedly well.

INXC, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

I've been married to my first wife for 28 years. At some point I thought, well, couldn't I do better? Or wouldn't it be good to spice up my life a bit? So I imagined a woman who was beautiful and sexy like Marilyn Monroe, who cleaned house like Mary Poppins, and who was as saintly as Mother Teresa. Then I realized that she would probably look like Mother Teresa, be a nag like Mary Poppins, and a drug addict like Marilyn Monroe. So I decided to thank God for what I had.

Also, stay away from booze and drugs, which can get you into trouble.

[Owen Jones]

So cut out the high energy music, which is very libidinous, and stop intellectualizing, which is also a function of the libido, not the true intellect. It's all about control and power. Give up control and power to God in all things. We are not in control.

[Trudy]

This is excellent information and practicality. Especially taking the intellectual words of "don't do it" and sorting out the "how". Thank you!

Athanasia

[Jill]

Thank you Owen, for the funniest post I've yet seen on Monachos! Funny, but also so, so wise and true! Maybe this paragraph should be hung in a very visible place in every married couple's home.

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Dear Nick S.,

It is my understanding that evil assaulted Christ from without, inasmuch as Christ never allowed these evil thoughts to enter into his heart. In essence, Christ never acted upon these thoughts and, therefore, never developed any passions besides what the fathers call 'blameless passions,' such as thirst and hunger.

It is important, in my understanding of the fathers, to understand that our thoughts are not 'us.' We really have no control over whether the devil assaults or tempts us. We only have control over what we do with these assaults. We see that Christ Himself was assaulted and even interacted/dialogued with Satan. Although Christ and the greatest of the saints are able to interact with and defeat Satan in the thoughts, it is recommended for beginners, like myself, to simply ignore the assaults and not even enter into dialogue lest we be deceived.

Aaron

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Dear Olympiada,

It would be good for you to discuss this with someone who is more experienced in the spiritual life than I. Nonetheless, because you asked my opinion and because I am confident that there are people on this site that can and will correct any mistakes I make, let us proceed with our discussion.

What to do with an evil thought that has become a passion? As Owen mentioned, stop doing things that feed this passion. Moreover, as I mentioned in my previous post to Nick, the Fathers say to ignore these thoughts. They are not 'us,' they are the devil. Do not entertain them, do not dialogue, do not consent.

If you cannot determine if a thought is evil or good, I would recommend ignoring it. If the thought is from God, He will surely show you how this thought is good. If you reject a good thought because you do not want to displease God thinking that it might be evil, surely He will not chastise you. In addition, when you have a chance, discuss the thought with your spiritual father.

Is it evil to desire someone outside of marriage? That's difficult to answer. It depends on what you mean by desire. If it means you are assaulted by thoughts of intimacy with this person, then it may be an evil thought, but the Fathers say that being assaulted is not sinful. If it is desire because you entertain the thought and give consent, then perhaps you have sinned to some degree, albeit less than if you actually committed the sin--but, remember, thank God that He has not allowed you to commit this in actual deed, for if we give consent but have not actually fallen captive, it is only because God has kept us from the greater sin by our outer circumstances.

If you read the books that I mentioned, especially the 'Confronting and Controlling Thoughts' by Fr. Anthony Coniaris, you will find out the Desert/Philokalia Fathers that specifically deal with these issues.

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Dear Owen,

Saying the Jesus prayer, whether it be 300 times or 30,000 times per day, is not enough. If you don't believe me, then believe the Fathers that did this, yet were assaulted constantly by evil thoughts--probably even more than those of us like myself that are very worldly and sinful. The Fathers teach us about confronting and controlling thoughts, and we would be silly to ignore their lessons. Certainly, the Jesus prayer is a primary aid in dealing with these thoughts, but learning about the thought pattern and how to confront and control it is most beneficial. It is only overly intellectual if we study this for information purposes. If we study this to put it into practice, it is of great benefit to our souls.

Aaron

[Olympiada]

Owen, I am afraid I do not know what intellectualizing is then. I mean we are talking about thoughts which are intellectual. You write as if the libido is evil. My understanding from Freud is that it is the life force. Are you saying the libido is all about power and control? I know we are not in control. And what is this talk of power? Where are you coming from Owen?

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Owen,

You sometimes sound quite strict, but I like your honest sense of humour, and if your advice is taken, I think it will be very beneficial. It's nice to meet people (even in cyberspace) who are able to look through modern life, or look at it laterally, from the outside so to speak. Thank you.

Regarding warring with desire outside marriage, Olympiada writes


what to do with a thought that has become passion? And also how do we determined what is an evil thought and what is a good thought? Which gets back to desire outside of marriage. Is it evil to desire someone outside of marraige, someone we have no plans of marrying. Someone we desire to marry but who does not desire to marry us?!

It seems to me that once a thought has become a passion, we deal with it by firstly recognising it and admitting it is there, confessing it to our spiritual father if we are fortunate enough to have one, then much prayer, fasting, vigil and being strengthened by the sacraments. Unlike some forms of therapy (which I believe can also be useful in helping us recognise the psychological factors influencing us in having the thoughts in the first place, or highlighting the habitual and repetitive nature of the thought patterns), Orthodox spirituality addresses not so much the behaviour directly, as the whole person.

The way we determine what is a good or an evil thought is by discernment, a capacity which also grows through prayer etc. if it is God's will to grace us with it. Mostly for beginners like myself I have to rely on my spiritual father for discerning the good and evil in anything that's confusing or ambiguous.

As has been said already, it is not evil to be assaulted by desire for someone outside marriage, though obviously the assault comes ultimately from evil. What is crucial is the way we respond to this desire. But Olympiada, do I hear some confusion in your feelings towards this person? You say you have no plans of marrying, yet desire to marry this person; at the same time you know he does not desire to marry you. Already I sense, and may be mistaken, that there is a fundamental inequality and non-reciprocity of emotion in this relationship - my point here is, that such a relationship is not currently based on a true meeting of persons, as an Orthodox relationship is. How personal is a desire that is blind to the other's non-responsiveness? Is it love or libido? It sounds more like a case of wanting to be wanted, rather than wanting and being ready to sacrifice all, because of this particular person and no other will do.

Good luck in clearing this matter up and may you make good progress in your spiritual life.

Finally, I would also appreciate clarification from someone on whether the fact that Christ was not assaulted "on the inside" by His own thoughts, compelled the devil to materialise visibly in order to tempt Him (well, he tried to anyway).

In Christ
Byron

[Klod]

I have found it, by experience, that

1) the worst temptation is to be upset about (why I do I have this/these) temptations.

2)temptation is double edged sword, that, if treated in right way, not only roots out our sins, but also may bring simply salvation to others as well.

3) that it is very difficult to see temptation in this way in time of temptation.



God, knowing our weaknesses and sinful nature, our inclinations, and our lack of prayer for others, allows us to fall into temptation it give us the chance, not only to root out our weaknesses, but also, by changing our attitude to others from e.g hate to love, from carnal to spiritual, we might even bring salvation to them.



So, when desiring another person in an unlawful way, by changing these desiring thoughts into spiritual meditation about this same person, is merely what Cross did to satan, that, instead of satan killing you through this person, you kill satan through the same person, and not only kill satan, but also you might well bring salvation of all sort even to that person.



If prayer is not sufficient, why not fasting about that person?

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

Dear Friends,
Forgive me for 'butting' in to this quite long thread. As I see this 'problem' however it is put, the very proper route is frequent confession. And by this I mean not just to one's Spiritual Father but to one's Priest, regardless of their age in relation to us. (A Spiritual Father can often not be in a priestly role - the well known Elder Joseph the Hesychast was not a Priest, yet his disciples 'opened their heart' to him.) I have pointed out this before, and the essential is HUMILITY - even if our Parish Priest is younger than us, the very act of Confession, grants to the Priest the proper attitude we should have, and what is a fact anyway - the grace of Priesthood, it also (perhaps unknown to us) grants us similitude to Christ Himself.
My Brothers and Sisters, whether monastics or not, do not pass by the Sacrament the Church so readily makes available. Confession to our Priest (regardless of age, or God-forbid, our opinion of him) will 'solve' this problem. And do not be 'ashamed' to confess the same 'thought' more than once, confess it hourly if need be!.

[Owen Jones]

Let's remember that it is the nature of the Evil One to not be so blatant, but rather to sow confusion in the mind. We throw the term evil around quite indiscriminately today to equate evil with things that we personally do not like or find offensive to our own personal sensibilities. And we objectify evil as a way of externalizing it, then we form an intellectual concept in order to believe we have gained control of it. So it is with so-called social evils such as poverty and inequality. But in the process of condemning such evils we have succumbed to our own libidinous obssessions (the libido is not simply the sexual passion but all desire that is inherently unstable).

THe desire to dominate, the libido dominande, is the "modern sin" if you will, and it is typically employed through a process of intellectualizing reality, as if we could be an objective observer of reality from some Archimedean point that is extrensic to it. But the Fathers understood that reality is a bit more complex than that, and also a lot more simple than that at the same time. The primary point is that we are part of reality, and any attempt to get outside of reality to "observe" it or understand it "objectively" is evidence of a soul-sickness.

If one will indulge me a little further on this point, Freud would be a concrete example. He claimed to have developed an objective schema to explain all human motivation via a theory of repression which he believed was a necessary evil but nevertheless the basis of civilization, and then believed that through analysis he help people overcome their neuroses that were the result of repression, but especially people who could afford his fees. The goal was to enable people to conform themselves to the societal standards of the day and achieve a kind of psychological normalcy, by utilizing analysis as a kind of release. There is a shorthand term for this type of system --- ideology.

But this problem is not limited to "modern" ideologies. We can commit the same sin with regard to theology and the spiritual life, by trying to objectify it and reduce it to a "system of thought." This becomes an excuse not to have to actually live it. It gives us an illusion of being an expert on the "subject" of theology, as if theology were a "subject" to be studied, rather than a symbolic reference point of the experience of God's presence, in all of its dimensions and ranges. Symbols that both reflect the reality of the experience as well as engendering the experience through openness to its truth.

Orthodoxy is "true" not in the sense that it is an objective system to be learned or studied, but because it is more comprehensive, complete and harmonious in regards to this range of experiences that we call the "human." (another symbol, since "human" is not a subject that submits to definition any more than "God" is an object of study).

The first step in resistance to the temptation to intellectualize reality is to give up control to God. We believe that we are in control in all kinds of subtle ways in which consciousness plays tricks on us. But God is in control, we are not. Most of what the psychologists call mental illness is simply the result of attempting to live as if we are in control, when all of the facts of our daily life and experience prove otherwise, and yet we cling to this fiction as tenaciously as if we were addicted to a drug.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Aaron,
You wrote


Is it evil to desire someone outside of marriage? That's difficult to answer. It depends on what you mean by desire. If it means you are assaulted by thoughts of intimacy with this person, then it may be an evil thought, but the Fathers say that being assaulted is not sinful. If it is desire because you entertain the thought and give consent, then perhaps you have sinned to some degree, albeit less than if you actually committed the sin--but, remember, thank God that He has not allowed you to commit this in actual deed, for if we give consent but have not actually fallen captive, it is only because God has kept us from the greater sin by our outer circumstances.

We need to be entirely clear that it is evil to desire someone else outside of our marriage. I think that what you are referring to is more the question of where the evil is coming from- from ourselves or from without- ie provocation from the evil spirits through the thoughts; and also the degree of complicity in this evil according to how much we have entertained the thought and acted on it. All of these things are important in the spiritual struggle.

We need to keep firmly in mind however that what we are struggling against is evil desires and that when it comes to attraction for others it is very rare that this attraction is not let into our heart in a sinful way at least to some degree.

The main point here is that in our struggle we do not take the categories of the Holy Frs as meaning that in our encounter with evil there is some way in which we are left completely innocent.

Connected to this the advice of Seraphim Black about confession is extremely important. Constant confession gradually leads one to the understanding that sinful brokeness is our state and that this is what we are bringing to God to heal.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Olympiada]

Dear Klod
How do we spiritually meditate on a person and fast for person?

Dear Community,
Imagine being assaulted by desire for a person who is assaulted by desire for their own gender. Get the picture? Now is this a post modern problem or what? Again this is not a place to discuss personal situations but priniciples. So I am discussing a situation where a woman desires a man who desires other men. Does this thread make more sense now?
In Christ
Olympiada

PS A man who desires other men can not marry a woman.

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

Dear Olympiada,

As a member of the Community I will let Klod answer the question addressed to him.

As for myself allow me these few words. Your first post has certainly generated a lot of very good points and brought much comfort to others. As I have been taught we must pray constantly and never judge another person. Spiritual healing comes from this amongst other things posted here.

The answer to all questions is found in Christ.

If you are directly stating that you desire a man who desires only men, the answer has been amply given in the various posts. If you are alluding to a situation outside your own heart's desire, then follow Christ's words and do not judge.

If you want to address me personally about this, I can share with you what I have learned from the 'multitude of witnesses' God has allowed me to know.
May our Lord comfort you and His Most Pure Mother cover you.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

The main principle needs to be that our life in Christ is led within a particular place- parish or monastery- and within a particular state- single or married- that God has called us to.

It is in faithfulness to this which requires humble obedience that we are led to understand what path we need to take in regard to others.

Otherwise things will always be so theoretical or confusing that we will never know what to do.

In other words have faith and as they say, "ask your father (parish priest) and he will tell you".

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Olympiada]

Dear Owen,


But in the process of condemning such evils we have succumbed to our own libidinous obssessions (the libido is not simply the sexual passion but all desire that is inherently unstable).

What do you mean by all desire that is inherently unstable? What is unstable desire? What is stable desire?


THe desire to dominate, the libido dominande, is the "modern sin" if you will, and it is typically employed through a process of intellectualizing reality, as if we could be an objective observer of reality from some Archimedean point

Ok are you saying the desire to dominate is the libido? And what is an Archimedean point?

[Owen Jones]

First of all, these are operative terms, not concepts referring to objects.

Second, libido refers to desire that is unstable, that is, disordered and focused on the wrong "object" or goal. It's not just sexual desire but any desire that is off course. True desire is that which is not only for God but which is properly ordered and directed by the virtues. So one can have a libidinous obsession with God that is unstable, disordered and leads to much grief. Which is what most of us have most of the time.

Archimedes was the guy who said he could move the world with a large enough lever.

[Olympiada]

Dear Owen,
What do you mean these are operative terms, not concepts referring to objects?
What's your background anyways? You seem like an expert on this subject. Why?
What is properly ordered desire?

[Klod]

Pay attention and meditate a bit about the saying of Seraphim of Sarov: "Find peace within yourself, and all around you will be saved."

It is all about this (peace). This is the most simple difficulty and the most difficult simplicity.


Attending Liturgy in a proper way it helps a great deal to understand exactly this peace (that saves others as well), even to receive it. Praying continuously to the most PURE Mother of God, also, it helps you. So does confession.


Do not engage yourself in thinking about your desire passionately at times when these feelings capture you, but, when you realize these feelings are approaching, let that be like e bellring for you to remind that you have to pray, and one can pray everywhere. At that very moment you ought to engage yourself in prayer, why not prostrations if possible.
This is what the Fathers call Vigilance and it is very important in spiritual life.


And then gradually your passion will change in a attitude of Christ's Love, and so through this love you will see your the cause (person, thought etc). You will feel sorry for that person's sins. You will want him to be saved in the Last Judgement day. You will want God to protect from being let us say devils device, and moreover that instead of that God may change all this into a really passionless christian love etc etc.



Moreover CONTACT our dear Fr. Seraphim Black, as he has a GREAT heart to help, and he will help you.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Owen,

I like the novel way you use the term "libido"; although you may be correct in pointing out that "these are operative terms, not concepts referring to objects" (if by that you mean that there is no such "thing" as "libido", that it is just a way of talking about human desire), I think it's important also to state that you are using the term in a different way from Freud. I happen to agree with the premise that


True desire is that which is not only for God but which is properly ordered and directed by the virtues.

However, it seems intellectually unfair to then borrow a term from another system of thought and put it into one's own philosophy, without stating that you are going to use it in this special and quite different sense. Having said that, it is a common enough thing to do in discussions, and I don't normally go in for pedantry as long as I'm catching the drift, but in this case your special use of the term libido has ethical dimensions which Freud probably never intended to give it. Interestingly, the libido concept does seem to fit the notion of blind, impersonal - and therefore potentially sinful - desire quite well; it was initially conceptualised by Freud, after all, as a basic instinct, and hence an innate force in us that is oblivious of persons in the environment - persons become mere "objects" onto which it is directed. Like all passions, I do not think it is in itself, or in its origin, "evil", it is merely a bodily energy, but that energy does seem to me to need to be channelled into and circumscribed by the genuine personal encounter, between man and man or man and God in order to find its true aim. This final point is not Freud's theory of course, but it is perhaps a way of tieing Freudian concepts into an Orthodox Christian frame of thought.

In Christ
Byron

[Owen Jones]

It was Freud who used libido in a novel way, by applying it exclusively to the sexual instinct, the repression of which by civilized society was a necessary evil, and yet was the cause of various neuroses (according to Freud's theory). Presumably prior to "civilization" people did not have neuroses. So Frued falls into the pattern of post-18th Century romantic thinkers.

Go back to The City of God and you will find libido used in its fuller, broader and deeper sense of desire, specifically lust, but not just for sex, but any worldly things that divert our attention from God.

The somewhat equivalent term in Greek is Eros, but I am not sure what the equivalent would be for libido dominandi. Eros is desire or intense longing for God which is typically deformed or inverted toward worldly things.

If anyone has an ethical problem it would be Freud.

[Olympiada]

Dear Owen


So Frued falls into the pattern of post-18th Century romantic thinkers.

Who else in your opinion falls into the pattern of post-18th Century romantic thinkers? And what in your opinion is a "romantic thinker"?

And where are you getting this word libido domandi from? I never heard of that phrase before.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Owen,

You may be correct in attributing the word "libido" to much earlier sources than Freud. I haven't read Augustine's "City of God", so thank you for directing my attention to it. If that is where "libido dominandi" also originates, could it be the source of Freud's much less well-known term "destrudo", the imputed energy of the death instinct?

Nevertheless, regarding the appropriate use of terminology, I think most middle-brow readers today would associate "libido" with Freud, so it is probably a good idea to indicate when you are using it in the Augustinian sense.

I don't know whether Freud had an "ethical problem", but I think he reached certain conclusions which sadly prevented him and many of his followers from enjoying the presence of the Divine in their lives. Even so, I suspect he had his personal reasons for bearing a grudge against the hypocritical milieu in which he found himself, namely the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and I don't know if I myself would have felt much different. No personal reference is intended here, but are there not some "believers" who are enough to turn one off religion forever? Perhaps Freud was surrounded by such; then again, maybe it was just his own materialistic blindness which prevented him from asking "and what is matter, anyway?".

All hypothetical questions.

In Christ
Byron

[Olympiada]

Dear Byron
Actually there is a book called The Christian Unconscious of Sigmund Freud:
http://www.paulvitz.com/FreudsXtnUncon/
You can read it there.

Dear Owen,
I have the City of God. Where is libido referenced? Is the book indexed?

In Christ
Olympiada

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Olympiada,

Thank you for the link, I am familiar with the work of Paul Vitz. Although I think what he says is relevant to Orthodox Christians, I'm afraid it still leaves a bibliographical gap in the actual Orthodox literature (written by Orthodox authors) on mental health. There is of course a great deal of literature on mental health and Christianity from the Roman Catholic and especially the Protestant traditions.

Many thanks again for the interesting link.

In Christ
Byron

[Owen Jones]

C of G 14.28

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I don't think that .28 has any place in this serious discussion.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Olympiada]

Dear Owen,
I read that and I see domination mentioned but not libido. Where do you get the idea that libido means domination?

[M.C. Steenberg]

In case others are curious to know the text being mentioned by Owen and Olympiada, the English text of City of God 14.28 is as follows (tr. M. Dodds):

CHAPTER 28 -- OF THE NATURE OF THE TWO CITIES, THE EARTHLY AND THE HEAVENLY.

Accordingly, two cities have been formed by two loves: the earthly by the love of self, even to the contempt of God; the heavenly by the love of God, even to the contempt of self. The former, in a word, glories in itself, the latter in the Lord. For the one seeks glory from men; but the greatest glory of the other is God, the witness of conscience. The one lifts up its head in its own glory; the other says to its God, "Thou art my glory, and the lifter up of mine head." In the one, the princes and the nations it subdues are ruled by the love of ruling; in the other, the princes and the subjects serve one another in love, the latter obeying, while the former take thought for all. The one delights in its own strength, represented in the persons of its rulers; the other says to its God, "I will love Thee, O Lord, my strength." And therefore the wise men of the one city, living according to man, have sought for profit to their own bodies or souls, or both, and those who have known God "glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened; professing themselves to be wise," -- that is, glorying in their own wisdom, and being possessed by pride -- "they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things." For they were either leaders or followers of the people in adoring images, "and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever." But in the other city there is no human wisdom, but only godliness, which offers due worship to the true God, and looks for its reward in the society of the saints, of holy angels as well as holy men, "that God may be all in all."

INXC, Matthew

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Thanks Matthew! As you can probably tell by my previous post I didn't get it.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Owen,

I am actually curious to know more about your reading of libido in the City of God (and elsewhere). I entirely agree with your assessment of it in your previous posts; I would like to hear more.

INXC, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

Regrettably, second hand sources entirely. I would refer you back to Ellis Sandoz. I think I gave him your e-mail address a while back. Did he ever contact you?

[Olympiada]

Dear Matthew and Owen,
Is it not better to come to a discussion with first rather than second hand sources? Otherwise it just amounts to intellectual bullying. I for one don't put much account in second hand sources. Unless a person has read the material they are discussing, or experienced it, I am not convinced.
INXC
Olympiada

[Antonios]

Dear Olympiada,

I appreciate many of your posts for their directness and sincere inquiry. There are, however, other posts of yours which do not reflect the fraternal and nurturing nature of this discussion forum. We are all here to help one another in understanding this thing we call life and to help each other understand the Orthodox path we must travel on. I have never gotten the impression that anyone has been trying to 'intellectually bully' you. There appears to be much angst and distrust in several of your posts, as well as some with needless inflammatory remarks.

Obviously 'first hand sources' are more reliable than 'second hand sources', but what makes something reliable is what the source is. There is often just as much truth in a tabloid article whether you read it from the magazine or hear it from a friend who read it. In the opposite regard, there are people on this discussion board who through past discussions have shown themselves to be more learned than either you or I am. We must learn to be a little bit more trustful and a little less cynical. No one is here to intentionally lead you astray or bully you.

in humility and love,
Antonios

[M.C. Steenberg]

Is it not better to come to a discussion with first rather than second hand sources? [...] I for one don't put much account in second hand sources. Unless a person has read the material they are discussing, or experienced it, I am not convinced.

It seems (to me) that it is not so black-and-white a case as this. Which 'primary sources' does on hark back to? It's clear, yes, that when referring to the thought of an individual (e.g. Augustine), reading Augustine is critical (this precisely the subject of conversation in another current thread, actually); but when broader issues are being addressed, the question becomes, which 'primary' sources are primary enough? I think Owen's point above was focussed most directly on the question of desire, not per se on the specifics of Augustine's reading of it. In such a discussion, which is about desire more broadly, in the even larger context of the thread's title, 'Warring with desire', a broad reading seems helpful.

Owen: I would enjoy your expansion, from your own thoughts as also from Sandoz and others (and no, he was never in touch with me).

INXC, Matthew

[Olympiada]

Dear Antonios,

I did not say that any one was attempting to be an intellectual bully towards me. I said that quoting from second hand sources without having read first hand sources first could be construed as being an intellectual bully. Again I am misunderstood.

And as far as this being a fraternal community, perhaps that is the problem. I am a woman. How can I be part of a fraternity? Is there a word that encompasses both genders that we can use?

Dear Matthew,

Are you referring to the thread on Augustine? Then I will read it from the beginning as time allows. I think I have strayed from the thread of desire into first hand and second hand reading of sources, so perhaps I need to move my attention to the thread on Augustine instead.

INXC
Olympiada

[Antonios]

And as far as this being a fraternal community, perhaps that is the problem. I am a woman. How can I be part of a fraternity? Is there a word that encompasses both genders that we can use?

I believe the word fraternal captures the meaning of my original post, and in that context, has absolutely nothing to do with gender. This community is not a fraterity as you put it and the fact that you are a women has nothing to do with you being misunderstood.

Perhaps, I should just use the word comradery.http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/wink.gif

in humility and love,
Antonios

[Owen Jones]

Eric Voegelin developed the idea of the libido dominandi being behind the modern ideological movements. I can't point to a single passage, but there is an excellent web site containing Voegelin topical references that was put together by Frits Wagner (if you use his name on the search engine it will take you there). I think Voegelin was influenced by Augustine's writings on the two loves, amor dei and amor sui.

Identifying ideology as a libidinous obsession is a major analytical achievement. But he also uses the concept in reference to religious sectarian movements. Voegelin, as you may be aware, is difficult, with a massive amount of historical materials and his own neologistic style that takes a while to comprehend. But the intro to Vol I of Order and History is a great place to start. In Voegelin one gets the feeling of a sense of awe and reverence for the created order (not in the vulgar naturalistic sense of modern romanticism), particularly the idea of an ordered whole.

I trust Voegelin's references and he is one writer we can trust on his orginal sources.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I take the point that no offence was meant against anyone and that for the most part we strive to be a community of some sort here.

On the other hand though I also think we need to keep in mind the different ways in which males & females 'do' theology & that it is easier perhaps than we realise for us men to turn theology into something like a comfortable sitting room where we are smoking our pipes- meanwhile outside the room there is a war going on.

I think quite a few of the women besides Olympiada would understand what is being said here. So an extra effort is needed I think at all times.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Olympiada]

Dear Fr Raphael,
I appreciate your sensitivity. I just know that I am often misunderstood in this community and I want to be understood.

Dear Owen,
What do you mean vulgar naturalistic sense of modern romanticism? You seem to have a *Very* low opinion of romanticism and I wonder why. You seem bitter almost. Why so strong feelings about this? And also is Voegelin getting side tracked? Do any modern Orthodox theologians site him?

INXC
Olympiada

[Antonios]

Thank you Father Raphael for your post. I shouldn't make assumptions or judge what I no little about. I apologize to you Olympiada for any offence I caused you.

in humility and love,
Antonios