View Full Version : 'Born gay'?
Justin Farr
02-02-2008, 05:46 AM
Are homosexuals born gay? Did God create them in the womb to be gay?
Paul Cowan
02-02-2008, 06:11 AM
In short, no. God made us male and female. We are to leave our mother and father and to cleave to one another and become one flesh. It is only because of the Fall of mankind and our sinfullness that the homosexual lifestyle has flourished. Consider Sodom and Gemorrah. The men were so full of sin they did not even want to rape Lot's virgin daughters.
There is a cure for sin. That is prayer and fasting as Christ said; " this kind only comes out by prayer and fasting." That is why the disciples were not able because up until that point, they were not fasting.
No one is born gay. It is a learned behavior. External influences whether abuse or media or demonic temptation stoke the flame of this sin within. It may be more difficult for some to overcome than others, but with God all things are possible.
Paul
Aaron Wake
02-02-2008, 06:56 AM
I believe that some people are more likely than others to have feelings and attractions to the same sex. Much like some people are more likely to abuse alcohol than others who can just drink socially. We all have vices and this is a terrible one to have I would imagine. But like the poster before me said, all things are possible with God. But I would absolutely say no. We are not born gay. It is absolutely not scriptural. It contradicts it in fact.
Andreas Moran
02-02-2008, 11:34 AM
Such now is the nature of our society that our views as Orthodox Christians can scarcely be voiced. In England, you could be accused of harassment in your workplace, and you could end up being prosecuted. It's worthwhile remembering that a general Google search can show up results that include posts from this forum.
Justin Farr
02-02-2008, 05:44 PM
Interesting posts so far.
Any Scripture or fathers/mothers of the Church would be helpful as well.
I look forward to more polling and hopefully posts. :)
I voted yes, because I do not believe being gay is a sin but acting on it is. And with us living in a fallen world, born with diseases and other abnormalities, it is quite possible someone can be born gay (or it could be influenced paternally, etc.).
Jim McQuiggin
02-02-2008, 06:52 PM
I had to vote "Other" because I believe the poll is asking two very different questions. To the first, I would answer "No", to the second, "Maybe".
In Psalm 50/51 we read, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me." This does not mean that a man (generic) is born with sin, or guilty in any way. But it does acknowledge the sinfulness of one's mother and of humanity in general. Jesus acquired his humanity from the All Pure Virgin, but the rest of us did not. Within the womb abnormalities of all sorts occur. God does not create or fashion these or any other abnormalities. It is quite reasonable to believe that one's sexual orientation and drives may be damaged from the womb.
This is why in the verses that precede the above quoted that David begged for mercy and washing. He did so with joyful expectancy of receiving this cleansing.
All of us, not just gays, struggle with issues from the womb.
Father Serafim
02-02-2008, 09:10 PM
Homosexuality is acquired, not genetic as some modern thinkers would have us belief. Sodomy, effeminacy are condemned as sins by the Fathers (St John of the Ladder et al). When the Holy Psalmist says: and in sin did my mother conceive me - it means we are born with the taint of original sin (not guilt) but that does not imply being slaves to perversion at birth.
Justin Farr
02-02-2008, 09:21 PM
OK, I am confused. I thought the Orthodox position was being gay in and of itself is not a sin, and that it is possible to be born with it (among other ways to acquire it), but the only sinful part was acting on it, giving into it, etc.
So you are saying that a gay person is sinning just by their nature? Their very being is a sin?
Paul Cowan
02-02-2008, 09:55 PM
That's not what Father is saying. When Adam and Eve sinned, they brought sin unto us all. Sin is passed down now through the generations culminating in death. We have a sin nature. We can choose not to sin though. A person sins when acting on sinful thoughts. The nature of a person is not what causes sin, but what he does about his nature. Homosexuality is not a natural state of man. We are not born homosexual. It is in response to certain stimuli as we grow that it manifests itself. It can also be rooted out through prayer and fasting.
Yes, Father is right:
When the Holy Psalmist says: and in sin did my mother conceive me - it means we are born with the taint of original sin (not guilt) but that does not imply being slaves to perversion at birth.
Also we are baptized after we are born. But if we say a thief is so from the womb, is not true.
If you notice the prayer of the saints you will see that this is no different from other sins, and thus idolatry.
Martyr Terence and 40 others beheaded at Carthage
The Holy Martyr Terence and his companions suffered under the emperor Decius (249-251). The emperor issued an edict commanding all subjects to offer sacrifice to the pagan idols.
When the governor of Africa Fortunianus received this edict, he gathered the people into the city square, set out cruel instruments of torture and declared that everyone without exception had to offer the sacrifice to the idols.
Many, afraid of torture, complied. However, St Terence and forty other Christians bravely affirmed their faith in the Savior and ridiculed the idols. Fortunianus was amazed at their boldness and he asked how they as rational people, could confess as God, One Whom the Jews crucified as a malefactor.
St Terence answered that their belief was in the Savior, Who voluntarily endured death on the Cross and rose on the third day. Fortunianus saw that Terence inspired the others by his example, and so he ordered him to be isolated in prison with his three closest companions: Africanus, Maximus, and Pompeius. Fortunianus was determined to force the rest of the martyrs, including Zeno, Alexander and Theodore, to renounce Christ.
Neither threats nor terrible tortures could sway the holy martyrs. They burned them with red-hot iron, they poured vinegar on the wounds, they sprinkled on salt, and they raked them with iron claws. In spite of their sufferings, the saints did not weaken in their confession of Christ, and the Lord gave them strength.
Forunatian gave orders to lead the martyrs into the pagan temple, and once again he urged them to offer sacrifice to the idols. The valiant warriors of Christ cried out, "O Almighty God, Who once sent down fire on Sodom for its iniquity, destroy this impious temple of idolatry." The idols fell down with a crash, and then the temple lay in ruins. The enraged governor gave orders to execute them, and the martyrs, glorifying God, bowed their necks beneath the executioner's sword.
After the execution of the thirty-six martyrs, Fortunianus summoned Terence, Maximus, Africanus and Pompeius before him. He showed them the martyrs' bodies and again urged them to offer sacrifice to the idols. The martyrs refused. The governor put heavy chains on them, and gave orders to starve them to death. By night, an angel of the Lord removed the martyrs' chains and fed them.
In the morning, the guards found the saints cheerful and strong. Then Fortunianus ordered sorcerers and conjurers to carry snakes and all kinds of poisonous creatures into the prison. The guards looked into the cell through an opening in the ceiling and saw the martyrs unharmed, praying, and the snakes crawling at their feet. When the sorcerers opened the door of the prison cell, the snakes bit them. The furious Fortunianus gave orders to behead the holy martyrs. Christians took up their holy bodies and buried them with reverence outside the city.
Owen Jones
02-02-2008, 10:52 PM
Homosexuality has always been around. It's pretty much like any other problem related to mental obssessions, whether it is caused by some childhood influences, or something someone is born with a particularly tendency toward. I don't really think that is the issue for us. The arguments being used by "gay" activists is that it cannot be a moral issue if someone is born that way. But this presupposes that one HAS to act on one's impulses. You can just as easily say that we are all born liars and murderers and adulterers. So?
Yuri Zharikov
03-02-2008, 12:12 AM
Such now is the nature of our society that our views as Orthodox Christians can scarcely be voiced. In England, you could be accused of harassment in your workplace, and you could end up being prosecuted. It's worthwhile remembering that a general Google search can show up results that include posts from this forum.
I little while ago Patriarch Alexi said in front of the whole Council of Europe that homosexuality is a vice not different, say, from kleptomania. I think we should not worry too much if we say the same in the (semi)-privacy of this site.
In the Lord,
Yura
Since this thread deals somehow with nature, or nurture: I have heard that there are some TV characters for children that are "gay" and are created and used with the purpose to nurture children from a very young age with homosexuality. I do not know if this is true and I do not recall where I read, or heard it, but just wanted to know if this is true. Some characters said to be "gay" are Teletubies, Winnie the Pooh and his friends etc. Is this true? I would have probably dismissed this, however I have noticed the tendency of media lately to turn into "gay" everything that was not so in the past traditionally. For instance in the movie Shrek, the prince is so gay and so on.
Attemps to paint literary characters as homosexual long after they first appeared (such as Winnie-the-Pooh) is a symptom of postmodernist "deconstructionist" philosophies such as "critical literacy". Such approaches state that literature (which they call "text") can be "interpreted" from (take your pick) a Marxist, feminist, gender/gay etc perspective. Those who promote this "educational" approach do not distinguish between the established canon of literature, such as Shakespeare, Steinbeck, Donne, Garcia, Lessing, etc, and, say, a comic strip, a rap song, or Star Wars. To them, everything is a "text", that all "texts" have a "subtext", and all such "texts" are of equal value and "relevance". Cultural relativism gone completely mad.
This has led to the unedifying spectacle of the so-called "literacy wars" here in Australia, where (finally!!) the tide is turning against such arrant nonsense. I am eternally grateful that my primary and secondary education took place just before this disease took hold.
Owen Jones
05-02-2008, 04:44 PM
btw, the term homosexual did not exist prior to the 18th century. Prior to that, everything was defined according to the act: i.e. sodomy. So one was a sodomite, but there was no such thing as a homosexual type.
Kornelius
05-02-2008, 05:21 PM
Are homosexuals born gay? Did God create them in the womb to be gay?
Homosexuality is a sin, and God is not the author of sin. If God would create people as gay, then it would follow that God is a hypocrite for condemning homosexuality. So, where does homosexuality originates?
Homosexuality and homosexual tendencies happen during the first three or four years of someone's life. It is caused by two things: 1. A very distant and domineering father (or no father at all to influence masculinity) and 2. a very possessive mother.
The child becomes very effeminate. As a result, what may be perceived as a paradox follows. Later in life, he is in constant pursuit of masculinity, and thinks erroneously that by going with another man he will find that lost masculinity.
It is very difficult to understand this paradox, but it is no different from the ancient tribes who would eat the heart of a deer to become faster. It is an ancient part of the brain that regulates all this feelings called the hypothalamus gland and it works in a very complicated way.
For a woman to have homosexual tendencies, she must be exposed to similar dysfunctonal parental behaviors during her childhood. The only difference is that this time the father figure is played by the mother and the father is very effiminate. Her feminine side is never properly validated. The reversal of this roles has disastrous effects upon children.
What is writen above is the research of many doctors, psychologists and scientists since the time of Freud. However, lately they want to portray homosexuality as either a choice or something that you are born with. This is no accident. It is a very anti-christian claim. It reverses the natural order of things as established by God. There is a secret cabal behind all this who use homosexuals as pawns to further this anti-christian agenda. They portray it in almost every movie, and tv series in a very positive light. Since most of us unfortunately receive our education and the perception of reality from popular culture, we are constantly shaped and conditioned to accept these sins as a glorious way of life. Repetition, repetition, repetition. Goebbels of the Third Reich said, "Repeat somethings for a long time and people will belive it." Well, I guess it works, since even us orthodox are spending time on a topic that should be obvious to all of us!
Father David Moser
05-02-2008, 06:16 PM
Are homosexuals born gay? Did God create them in the womb to be gay?
Homosexuality is a sin, and God is not the author of sin. If God would create people as gay, then it would follow that God is a hypocrite for condemning homosexuality. So, where does homosexuality originates? ...
It is certainly possible that there may be a genetic predisposition towards homosexual tendencies. The problem with the question is that God does not create people in the womb - God created mankind, however a child in the womb is "created" by the communal action of the father and mother. But the father and mother, like all of us are fallen and so the "flaws" which are the result of corruption which is the aftermath of the fall are in us all. This genetic "flaw" then would be the result not of God's action, but rather of man's sin.
Even if there is a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality (being born gay) that in no way mandates that we act upon that predisposition. We are tempted by all kinds of desires which would lead us into sin and away from God. We have a choice whether or not we will allow any passion to master us. Homosexual tendencies (whatever those may be - it is a poorly defined concept) whether they are the result of nurture or nature still are subject to the choice of the person. We are not, after all, automatons or driven by fate or the slave of our instincts - we are the image and likeness of God. We have a free will, we can choose, we can submit to temptation or we can resist it. We can work out our salvation or slide into condemnation.
Our Lord Jesus Christ came into the world to seek and to save those who are lost, He came to heal the sick, He came to save sinners. We are all born into sin, we all are subject to corruption by nature, the glutton or the gossip is no less a sinner than the fornicator (be he hetero- or homo-sexual). There is no predestination to salvation or condemnation; the Gospel tells us that God is "the lover of all mankind and desires that all be saved and that none should be lost."
It does not matter if someone is born gay or a glutton or self-willed or egocentric or sick or healthy. God loves each of us an provides for each of us the path to salvation. "Come all ye that are weak and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest"
Fr David Moser
Justin Farr
05-02-2008, 06:45 PM
It is certainly possible that there may be a genetic predisposition towards homosexual tendencies. The problem with the question is that God does not create people in the womb - God created mankind, however a child in the womb is "created" by the communal action of the father and mother.
Oh. I worded my question the way I did because I believed it was the Orthodox belief that God creates us in the womb, like that bit of Scripture says (which means I also thought it was a leading argument against abortion).
Oh. I worded my question the way I did because I believed it was the Orthodox belief that God creates us in the womb, like that bit of Scripture says (which means I also thought it was a leading argument against abortion).
Of course there are God's energies participating there. We know that when antiChrist will be conceived the powers/energies of Satan will participate completely during that conception. A baby lives in the mind of God and then is given to the parents. A baby is born pure and during the first days of life he speaks with God and angels. Afterwards, he speaks with parents, family, society, with those that God warned not to mislead the little children, he speaks (or better is spoken to by media) and so on.
To Father David:
Father, if what you say is true about the possibility of a genetic predisposition. A homosexual decides to become a parent. After conceiving he/she regrets the decision since he/she is not happy to bring an infant in this world that might be genetically programed to be also homosexual. This homosexual parent-to-be decides to abort the pregnancy. What happens then? This may be an ethical scenario, but I am trying to understand.
Justin Farr
05-02-2008, 07:44 PM
Father, if what you say is true about the possibility of a genetic predisposition. A homosexual decides to become a parent. After conceiving he/she regrets the decision since he/she is not happy to bring an infant in this world that might be genetically programed to be also homosexual. This homosexual parent-to-be decides to abort the pregnancy. What happens then? This may be an ethical scenario, but I am trying to understand.
a bit along the same lines... Is it best for children to be adopted by a homosexual couple, or left in a terrible orphanage?
Father, if what you say is true about the possibility of a genetic predisposition. A homosexual decides to become a parent. After conceiving he/she regrets the decision since he/she is not happy to bring an infant in this world that might be genetically programed to be also homosexual. This homosexual parent-to-be decides to abort the pregnancy. What happens then? This may be an ethical scenario, but I am trying to understand.
Abortion is still abortion, and not justified. The child of two people born blind, isn't born blind, neither is the child of two people who are deaf from birth. Even children born to lepers are born without leprosy. And that's a contagious disease. They can remain healthy, but if there is a greater chance of such children catching the disease from their parents.
Although there is a genetic chance that the blindness and deafness will get passed, it doesn't always happen. Since homosexuality isn't something that can be traced to a defective gene, there's no way anyone can prove that an unborn infant is going to be predisposed to being gay.
But my question is, should a person with homesexual tendencies, whether he acts upon them or not, even get married in the first place and try to start a family, thinking it will help him overcome his temptations?
Mary
Abortion is still abortion, and not justified. The child of two people born blind, isn't born blind, neither is the child of two people who are deaf from birth. Even children born to lepers are born without leprosy. And that's a contagious disease. They can remain healthy, but if there is a greater chance of such children catching the disease from their parents.
Although there is a genetic chance that the blindness and deafness will get passed, it doesn't always happen. Since homosexuality isn't something that can be traced to a defective gene, there's no way anyone can prove that an unborn infant is going to be predisposed to being gay.
But my question is, should a person with homesexual tendencies, whether he acts upon them or not, even get married in the first place and try to start a family, thinking it will help him overcome his temptations?
Mary
Well, I know two lesbian women who got married and had a baby through AI (they were planing to have at least a baby each) with a homosexual guy who was also married to another guy but divorced.
About the genetic predisposition, I was asking since I have read from a life of saint that he saw the demon of sodomy coming to tempt him and the saint prayed and conquered him. So if there is a demon how come genes are involved?
Father David Moser
05-02-2008, 11:09 PM
Father, if what you say is true about the possibility of a genetic predisposition. A homosexual decides to become a parent. After conceiving he/she regrets the decision since he/she is not happy to bring an infant in this world that might be genetically programed to be also homosexual. This homosexual parent-to-be decides to abort the pregnancy. What happens then? This may be an ethical scenario, but I am trying to understand.
Abortion is the taking of a human life - it is murder. Murder is never an appropriate solution to a problem. As for the child and his or her future struggles, we trust God for that.
a bit along the same lines... Is it best for children to be adopted by a homosexual couple, or left in a terrible orphanage?
Both of these questions are basically pastoral issues (other than the absolute inadmissibility of abortion) and so are best referred to the priest who is there. Pastoral questions cannot be resolved "in theory" or as an "ethical scenario" because so much is dependent on the spiritual condition of those involved, which cannot be known "in theory".
Fr David Moser
Abortion is the taking of a human life - it is murder. Murder is never an appropriate solution to a problem. As for the child and his or her future struggles, we trust God for that.
Both of these questions are basically pastoral issues (other than the absolute inadmissibility of abortion) and so are best referred to the priest who is there. Pastoral questions cannot be resolved "in theory" or as an "ethical scenario" because so much is dependent on the spiritual condition of those involved, which cannot be known "in theory".
Fr David Moser
Of course abortion is murder. But if we say that homosexuality is a programed gene, then we might give the way for people to act and support abortion, or other sins which may come as a result. The scenario was only the case I presented, and maybe it is forbidden maybe not to come up with a scenario, but there are Orthodox Ethics. The example of the couples mentioned above is non-fiction and speaks for itself how the pattern of the society can be affected and again it is a real example and not a scenario. These people mentioned are not Orthodox, and they do not even believe in God at all, so there is no way for such people to be led by a spiritual father. So by what we support we may affect others even if they do not belong to a religious group, since we are all members of society.
Father David Moser
06-02-2008, 02:16 AM
But if we say that homosexuality is a programed gene, then we might give the way for people to act and support abortion, or other sins which may come as a result.
If such were a valid argument then why isn't promiscuity supported - sexual activity is after all genetically programmed and so "natural". Or how about gluttony - the need for food is also "genetically programmed" and "natural". The whole idea that just because something is "genetically programmed" makes it inevitable or permissible is false - and a ridiculous assumption.
Your whole post seems to forget that we rely upon the mercy and provision of God and so even if we have a gene for every sin in the book and that its therefore natural and inevitable to sin that God can give us the ability through the action of His grace to overcome even the "genetic" and "natural" and "inevitable"
Fr David Moser
Herman Blaydoe
12-02-2008, 01:27 PM
There are many tendencies that can be genetic in nature: alcoholism, Downs Syndrome, certain forms of cancer, obesity, high blood pressure, and maybe even homosexuality. So what?
There have been those who have supported euthanasia of "defective" peoples, and abortion is simply pre-birth euthanasia. Man tries to "speed up" "evolution" by only allowing selected individuals to live to create a "super race". Sound familiar?
Not killing people because their genes are not "perfect" (by some arbitrary definition) is not the same thing as saying that having cancer or high blood pressure are desireable things or that they constitute "valid lifestyles". If a person has a genetic condition, you treat it. They live a life that counters the tendency not that fosters it.
We all are born with a tendency towards sin. Some of us live lives that aggravate this tendency, and some of us live lives that try to counter the tendency. There are two ways, says the Didache. One way leads to life and one way leads to death. Choose wisely.
At least that is how it seems to this bear of admittedly little brain.
Herman the Pooh
There are many tendencies that can be genetic in nature: alcoholism, Downs Syndrome, certain forms of cancer, obesity, high blood pressure, and maybe even homosexuality. So what?
So what?
Here is one explanation:
Homosexuality is a sin, and God is not the author of sin. If God would create people as gay, then it would follow that God is a hypocrite for condemning homosexuality.
Here is another explanation:
Homosexuality is acquired, not genetic as some modern thinkers would have us belief. Sodomy, effeminacy are condemned as sins by the Fathers (St John of the Ladder et al). When the Holy Psalmist says: and in sin did my mother conceive me - it means we are born with the taint of original sin (not guilt) but that does not imply being slaves to perversion at birth.
These comments do not mean that we condemn people. Also I am stunned to see that Downs Syndrome, certain forms of cancer, high blood pressure are placed in the same level as homosexuality. Plus since when is Down syndrome a sin? Actually Papa Dimitrios Gagastathis has said that people with Down even if they live in our midst are already living in Heaven. Can we say the same for the people who sin? Not only about homosexuals, but any kind of sin.
In our times many things are blamed on genetics. They even found that obesity is the fault of the genes. So slowly we are going to blame everything on the genes and where does that lead? Which are the implications?
It is interesting that Adam and Eve never accused God. "Oh but You created us this way. Oh if You did not create us with the need to eat than we would not have fallen into the entrapment of the devil."
Everything goes back to the Evil One who is trying to snatch people away from God and to interfere with their salvation. Sometime ago Father Mathew wrote here (Maybe I am mistaken, maybe it is another Father so do not hold me responsible since I do not know in which thread I read it) that God kept asking so Eve could point out that the reason for their fall was the Devil and that was the truth. This was said much more eloquently and in a beautiful way, however I can't quote it - sorry.
This is what the truth is. We must know that all blessings and good things come from God. All bad and evil things come from the Devil. We all admit that we sin. All kinds of sin. Now why is it so politically incorrect for certain things to be told that those are the same like other sins. Let's go back to the first sin that caused the first death. If we go by the same reasoning then murderers are also programed that way. What about Cain? Was he programed to kill Abel? We read that it was envy, and the evil one that made Cain act that way. And of course Cain consented.
We must not fall for the lie that blames sin on God indirectly. We may loose our sensitivity to sin and the devil and may be comfortable to justify also our sins that way. The biggest lie of the devil is when he convinces people in a way or another that he does not exist and that he has nothing to do with our sins.
J. Austin
13-02-2008, 04:06 AM
Hi folks,
I have been reading the responses to the original question, "born gay?"
As with religion and politics, this is a heated subject when debated.
My personal belief is that God did not make anyone genetically homosexual, murderers, rapist, thieves, liars, haters of God, etc. I do not believe these behaviors have a genetic component. I believe all these behaviors have a choice component. "Genetic vs Choice"
We have been taught that we are to choose who/what we will serve, "life or death". Some behaviors we choose lead to life, some lead to death. God has forwarned mankind of the examples and differences between the two.
God is Life. When we choose things that produce death, we sin because we have turned away from God, the giver of Life and thus behave as anti-Christs.
Turning away from all that God is and stands for is sin, because it is choosing death. God is not death, He is Life. When we choose behaviors that produce death, the giver of Life is being rejected, as was in the original sin of Adam and Eve. To Adam and Eve, God was no longer seen (chosen) as their source of Life, they were going to try to generate life themselves without God.
Any behavior we choose that is anti-Life is anti-Christ/Anti-God and thus Sin.
God did, by grace, create us free to choose, and as such, what great Love He offered us in that respect. His Life is not forced on us, it is something He is allowing us to choose. Choosing it rather than being forced, makes it more meaningful and precious.
Again, the above is only my personal belief regarding "genetic vs choice" behaviors.
Jenn
Owen Jones
13-02-2008, 02:43 PM
Yes, but. We are all slaves to something. In the crudest sense, we are either slaves to our passions or slaves to our God. The more we are enslaved to our passions, the less role free well has. But as St. Paul notes, we are always struggling against a passionate state. I do not think it is such a neat and tidy issue, such that every sinner is simply not properly exercising his God-given free will. Even if there is no genetic factor in sin, outside influences in early childhood can rob a person of his free will from an early age. And societal influences, peer influences throughout life can perpetuate this problem. Not to mention the role of education. Which means it is complicated in that the person believes he is actually exercising his own free will when he thinks evil thoughts and commits evil acts. Because he rationalizes and justifies it, and believes that he is entitled to it. From his perspective, he is free. So there is a certain sense in which true free will does not exist for a person who is locked in his sins, so to speak. That true free will only accompanies a genuine turning around of the mind and heart to God. But in Orthodoxy this is not a static state. That is to say that Orthodoxy recognizes the truly dynamic quality of the soul, being tugged and pulled from different directions at once. Hence the emphasis on stillness, attentiveness and other "techniques" or "therapies" that quiet the soul so that it can be focused on the one thing needful, and not in a state of domination by the passions and various agitations which in turn are the result of demonic infiltration. Which is really what we mean when we say salvation -- having our true freedom back means not being dominated by forces from the underworld that cause excitability, that leads to anger, resentment, desire for revenge, fear, doubt, despair....the list goes on.
Back to genetics. Is it possible that some people are constitutionally, genetically, incapable of truth, and consequently true freedom? I think we recoil from this thought, because we think it makes God look bad. How could he possibly create a world in which some people are just genetically bad, with no capacity for free will? But I think we forget that in phrasing the problem this way, we are only looking at it from our narrow perspective in this earthly existence, which, when measured from eternity, is a nanosecond.
Andreas Moran
13-02-2008, 03:28 PM
I'm not sure why homosexual activity (and it is important to distinguish between the condition of homosexuality and homosexual activity: it is the latter which is sinful) is singled out for attention as it is (I don't mean by this thread). Since all sexual activity outside marriage of a man and a woman is proscribed, why is homosexual activity any different from any other? As has been suggested here, some people have trouble with sins of sensuality from either nature or nurture, from inheriting a disposition or its being brought about by influences. Clearly, God is not responsible for the former: we are born in a fallen state. From either cause or a mixture of both, some people do, clearly, have a strong tendency to homosexual activity. Likewise, some heterosexual people have a strong tendency to heterosexual activity. The difference, it may be said, is that heterosexual feelings are 'natural' and homosexual feelings are not. But heterosexual activity is a result of the Fall, it seems (have I got that right?), and so not 'natural' in the sense of our pre-Fall nature, and much heterosexual activity is outside the circumstances the Church allows anyway. It may be said that homosexual activity is now more or less accepted in society as an 'alternative lifestyle choice'. So is heterosexual 'living in sin' - far more so. It may be said that the Church 'punishes' homosexuals by forcing them to be celibate. It likewise 'forces' (not very successfully, probably) heterosexuals from any sexual activity unless they marry, though they are allowed that choice, it is true, and this is blessed by the Church. No strong passion is easy to cope with and all those struggling to cope deserve the same measure of compassion and pastoral sensitivity.
These comments do not mean that we condemn people. Also I am stunned to see that Downs Syndrome, certain forms of cancer, high blood pressure are placed in the same level as homosexuality. Plus since when is Down syndrome a sin? Actually Papa Dimitrios Gagastathis has said that people with Down even if they live in our midst are already living in Heaven. Can we say the same for the people who sin? Not only about homosexuals, but any kind of sin.
Ah, but you're working on the premise that homosexuality is a sin. If it's genetic, like Down's Syndrome, then all of a sudden, it's a handicap, something that you have no control over, something that you did not choose, something that you are bound by against your will - and therefore.... you're not responsible for your feelings or your acts!
And they have a lot of people convinced of that, as I found out this past Sunday, in a conversation with a faithful cradle orthodox of over 70 years. He was troubled about the Church's attitude towards homosexuals,whom he thinks can't help the way they are. He's convinced they're being persecuted and treated badly because of it. He's got a friend who said to him: "Do you think I chose to be this way? Do you think I like being persecuted? Do you think I don't want to be normal like everyone else, get married and have children, etc?" Guilt trip. And he bought it, hook, line and sinker.
It is interesting that Adam and Eve never accused God. "Oh but You created us this way. Oh if You did not create us with the need to eat than we would not have fallen into the entrapment of the devil."But they did blame each other, when we're taught that it is only right to take the blame ourselves, especially for things we've done, even if we were forced to do it! Our martyrs were martyred, because they didn't bend to force! So it is possible, to refuse someone who forces you, by losing your life. Like it says somewhere in the Bible - "we haven't resisted to the point of shedding blood..." Eve should've said to the serpent: "Eat the fruit? Not even if my life depends on it!"
I'm not sure why homosexual activity (and it is important to distinguish between the condition of homosexuality and homosexual activity) is singled out for attention as it is (I don't mean by this thread). .....No strong passion is easy to cope with and anyone struggling to cope deserves the same measure of compassion and pastoral sensitivity.
It is singled out because homosexuals are the new victims of society, who are being tormented just because of who they are. Now they want to be pampered and cuddled and told that they're ok just as they are. Like that annoying song that Barney sings: "I love you and you love me and we're a happy family." something like that.
It's true, they've been treated like freaks and given a hard time, but they haven't been murdered in huge masses as the Jews and Christians have been. Or as unborn babies are being murdered. It was helpful for me to be reminded again of what 'sin' is likened to in the orthodox church. Sin is a disease that we need to be healed from. And so, homosexuality, just as heterosexuality (which must be a sin too, if in heaven, we're all going to live like angels...), anger, greed, gluttony, depression, and all other passions - needs to be cured.
I've always thought it interesting that many saints denied themselves even the normal necessities of life - they denied themselves sleep, warmth, shelter, safety, food - things that are necessary to keep you alive! And no one needs sex to live. It's the least necessary of our 'natural' needs.
But, unless we acknowledge that our passions are diseases that we need to be healed from, how can God heal us? When Jesus went to the man who was lying by the pool, waiting for it to be stirred, he didn't just heal him. He could've. Instead, he asked the man if he wanted to be healed. The man, instead of just saying 'yes' started whining and telling Jesus why he was still sick. Until he was ready to say 'yes' Jesus didn't heal him. Sometimes I wonder if I truly want to be healed of my passions! I've lived with them for so long, they've become a part of me, they define me. What's going to be left if I lose all my passions? Will I still be able to enjoy life and have fun?
I suppose, all I have to do, is ask myself how much fun it is to lie paralyzed by the side of a pool... Maybe that's why physical illnesses are such a blessing - the sickness is obvious. For one, with a strong body, I think I'm enjoying life, when in real, I'm worse off than a person in a coma. So it is with those who are homosexual, until they see their choices as sinful, there's no cure for it. And the 'cure' for homosexuality isn't that they become heterosexual! No, I think the cure for all kinds of sexualities is that God becomes more important to us than ourselves.
Please forgive me.
In Christ,
Mary.
Andreas Moran
13-02-2008, 05:13 PM
It is singled out because homosexuals are the new victims of society, who are being tormented just because of who they are.
Surely they are not new victims and are much less tormented than before.
Surely they are not new victims and are much less tormented that before.
You know that, and I know that. =)
For that matter, they were never as victimized as other victims in the world. Most other victims died without ever being able to speak for themselves.
But seriously, don't you get the feeling that they want to be treated as if they're more special than the rest of us? Same with the Blacks in America. This month is supposed to be Black History Month. Last month, they spent most of the time talking about Martin King Luther. This month, should've been spent talking about Abraham Lincoln (without whom, MKL would never have dreamed dreams) and George Washington, both of whose birthdays are this month. We're also supposed to be honoring all our presidents, on President's day, this month, and maybe I"m dense, but I dont' think we've had a black president yet. So why is February 'Black History month?"
I asked my son to ask his teacher if there was going to be a 'White History Month'. Oh wait, if you did that, you'd have to have a Spanish History Month, a Chinese History Month, an Indian History Month... Yes, my son did ask his teacher, and she knew exactly why I"d asked him to ask it.
I also found out that a bunch of people want to celebrate the religious heritage of this country in May, with one week of 'Religious History Week' and they're having a hell of a time getting permission.
Talk about being narrow minded bigots! They want full freedom to be in our face, but they won't let us do whatever we want or say whatever we want, in a free country that allows Freedom of Speech and Religion!
By the same argument, I don't want to be in their face either, by telling them how to live their lives. I don't care what they do, they can be as gay as they wish, they can have all the parades they want, they can even get married and divorced and damage the lives of children. But I don't want them to be able to tell people that its wrong for churches to teach that homosexuality is a sin. If that's just opinion, so be it, am I not allowed to have my own opinions and talk about it? Sheesh!
Sorry. I'm severely opinionated. Is that a passion?
Porcupine.
Here's a song that I totally LOVE: (By They Might Be Giants)
I saw the best minds of my generation
Destroyed by madness, starving, hysterical
I should be allowed to glue my poster
I should be allowed to think
I should be allowed to glue my poster
I should be allowed to think
I should be allowed to think
I should be allowed to think
And I should be allowed to blurt the merest idea
If, by random whim, one occurs to me
If necessary, leave paper stains on the gray utility pole
I saw the worst bands of my generation
Applied by magic marker to dry wall
I should be allowed to shoot my mouth off
I should have a call-in show
I should be allowed to glue my poster
I should be allowed to think
I should be allowed to think
I should be allowed to think
And I should be allowed to blurt the merest idea
If by random whim, one occurs to me
If necessary, leave paper stains on the gray utility pole
I am not allowed
To ever come up with a single original thought
I am not allowed
To meet the criminal government agent who oppresses me
I was the worst hope of my generation
Destroyed by madness, starving, hysterical
I should be allowed to share my feelings
I should be allowed to feel
I should be allowed to glue my poster
I should be allowed to think
I should be allowed to think
I should be allowed to think
And I should be allowed to blurt the merest idea
If by random whim, one occurs to me
But sadly, this can never be
I am not allowed to think
I am not allowed to think
I am not allowed to think (I am not allowed to think)
I am not allowed to think (I am not allowed to think)
I am not allowed to think (I am not allowed to think)
I am not allowed to think (I am not allowed to think)
Ah, but you're working on the premise that homosexuality is a sin. If it's genetic, like Down's Syndrome, then all of a sudden, it's a handicap, something that you have no control over, something that you did not choose, something that you are bound by against your will - and therefore.... you're not responsible for your feelings or your acts!
Mary, you either are not understanding me because of my poor language, or it was too early, or too late when you wrote this :P.
Not only Papa Dimitrios Gagastathis is implying what you say, but he says that people with Down who are alive (live on earth) are already living in Heaven. This was opposed to people who sin. I know that when I sin, my life is a hell. Therefore I was tying it all together to show that it is not wise to equal people with Down Syndrome and other illnesses, with people who sin, and in our case, homosexuals.
And they have a lot of people convinced of that, as I found out this past Sunday, in a conversation with a faithful cradle orthodox of over 70 years. He was troubled about the Church's attitude towards homosexuals,whom he thinks can't help the way they are. He's convinced they're being persecuted and treated badly because of it. He's got a friend who said to him: "Do you think I chose to be this way? Do you think I like being persecuted? Do you think I don't want to be normal like everyone else, get married and have children, etc?" Guilt trip. And he bought it, hook, line and sinker.
Kind of yeah. That is what I am saying at the last sentence of the previous post. Devil's lies. Not the friend of your friend, but the devil that tricks the society at large and we fall for it (any kind of trick since the trick with the forbidden fruit).
But they did blame each other, when we're taught that it is only right to take the blame ourselves, especially for things we've done, even if we were forced to do it!
You have to understand: what I was trying to say is not that Adam did not blame Eve.
What I was trying to say (which Father Matthew had said in a post here and is a beautiful fact) is that God kept asking Eve so she would point out to the real instigator of that sin: devil. And then He gave the curses to them. This is a beautiful truth that shows that God is just. And on the other hand the point that interests us in our discussion is that the source of everything bad and sinful is the devil starting from that first sin.
Our martyrs were martyred, because they didn't bend to force! So it is possible, to refuse someone who forces you, by losing your life. Like it says somewhere in the Bible - "we haven't resisted to the point of shedding blood..." Eve should've said to the serpent: "Eat the fruit? Not even if my life depends on it!"
This was not my point at all for this discussion, but since you mention it: do not judge our fore-mother Eve since if it was you or me there, maybe we would have done much worse and not better.
Back to genetics. Is it possible that some people are constitutionally, genetically, incapable of truth, and consequently true freedom? I think we recoil from this thought, because we think it makes God look bad. How could he possibly create a world in which some people are just genetically bad, with no capacity for free will? But I think we forget that in phrasing the problem this way, we are only looking at it from our narrow perspective in this earthly existence, which, when measured from eternity, is a nanosecond.
What role does the nanosecond play in this case? What is your point? In any case, saying that genetics predispose a person to sin is similar with saying God brings suffering in the world. Why is there suffering in this world? Because of God? No. Because of the Fall and the devil. Why is there sin in this world? Because of God? No. Because of the Fall and the devil. Things are simple, but there is a lot of brainwashing from the devil.
What I was trying to say (which Father Matthew had said in a post here and is a beautiful fact) is that God kept asking Eve so she would point out to the real instigator of that sin: devil. And then He gave the curses to them. This is a beautiful truth that shows that God is just. And on the other hand the point that interests us in our discussion is that the source of everything bad and sinful is the devil starting from that first sin.
This was not my point at all for this discussion, but since you mention it: do not judge our fore-mother Eve since if it was you or me there, maybe we would have done much worse and not better.
Dear Nina,
Perhaps I misunderstood. It always happens. I re-read a few of the posts above and didn't notice anyone saying that homosexuality is like Downs' syndrome either.
I have to disagree with you about God talking to Eve. In spite of the fact that the Devil initiated the sin, she was still the one to reach out her hand, pick the fruit and take a bite. I think, when God asked her why she at the fruit, He was gently giving her a chance to confess, which she chose not to take, saying instead: "The Devil made me do it."
And it isnt' right that 'God kept asking her..." He only asked her once. She was very quick to answer, in her own defense. (according to the conversation recorded in Genesis. If He asked her many times, then I do not know, and have never heard of it.)
Forgive me if it seems I'm judging her. I'm only analyzing her act. And the reason I know it so well, is because I do it all the time. Like St Andrew says in the Canon, Adam and Eve lost paradise for breaking one Command, But I have broken far more than one, and I know it full well.
In Christ,
mary.
I have to disagree with you about God talking to Eve.
I think I mentioned that that was said by Fr. Matthew as was said by St. Irinaeus of Lyon. But as I have mentioned I do not remember the exact thread so I can quote it. The confessing is another part of the issue. The pointing out of the devil as the real enemy of the human race is another issue.
And it isnt' right that 'God kept asking her..." He only asked her once. Yes. I know that and it should have been God kept asking as in asking Adam and Eve.
Owen Jones
14-02-2008, 03:29 AM
Well, if sin ushered in a corruption of the body, then it's not a leap for me to consider that some genetic disorders contribute to sinful behavior. One of the interesting things I read recently about genetic studies is that they perform different functions and/or switch on and off based on all kinds of stimuli, including external, environmental stimuli. I don't think therefore that we can separate the operations of genes from behavioral influences. For example, your genetic development is quite likely influenced heavily by early childhood experiences. In any case, it is theologically and philosophically invalid to think of the natural world as operating independently of the spiritual world. They don't operate independently within an individual person. A person is not a self-contained entity. The mind is not something that exists apart from the Divine Mind.
One of the interesting things I read recently about genetic studies is that they perform different functions and/or switch on and off based on all kinds of stimuli, including external, environmental stimuli.
Yes we know for approximately a century now. However we are not discussing external and environmental stimuli. Since we know and accept that it is external (devil).
I don't think therefore that we can separate the operations of genes from behavioral influences. No one is separating them since genes trigger hormonal changes and the latter influence behavior.
For example, your genetic development is quite likely influenced heavily by early childhood experiences. This is a convolute statement. And I do not see how genes can develop by childhood experiences. Plus we are not talking for the after the baby is born, but about the before.
In any case, it is theologically and philosophically invalid to think of the natural world as operating independently of the spiritual world. They don't operate independently within an individual person. A person is not a self-contained entity. The mind is not something that exists apart from the Divine Mind.No one is saying the opposite (!!!). What is being said is that God does not create sinful people.
Herman Blaydoe
14-02-2008, 01:31 PM
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (KJV)
God did not create us to be sinful, but yet we sin. God has created a sinful creature. 'Tis an interesting conundrum.
Herman the Pooh
Andreas Moran
14-02-2008, 01:39 PM
God has created a . . . creature with free will to sin or not.
M.C. Steenberg
14-02-2008, 02:05 PM
Dear all,
Something that has not yet been brought up in this discussion, is the reality that freedom, like everything else, is effected by sin.
I am not free the way that Adam was free.
INXC, Dcn Matthew
Rick H.
14-02-2008, 02:28 PM
In the Beginning, in the garden, man was created with a void, man was not perfect, but was acceptable to God and walked with God, and lived in His paradise. Man was acceptable but he had the propensity to sin, as he did, as we do. It occurred to me many years ago that this void, this imperfection, that was put in place by the Divine Designer speaks to the nakedness of man, and certain conundrums, as I think it does here as well--especially as we may consider both the by-products and intended results of a primordial genetic engineering (from cradle to grave, or from design to production). So often, especially in Christianity it seems it is forgotten that we should not expect the End of the process to be found in the middle of the process, and when we forget this, we scratch our heads and wonder why.
Andreas Moran
14-02-2008, 03:22 PM
freedom, like everything else, is effected by sin.
I am not free the way that Adam was free.
INXC, Dcn Matthew
I presume you meant 'affected'! This has long been a problem for me - how free are we? There is no man that lives and sins not, we are told. So, we are not free. We cannot avoid sin. So, we are in need of forgiveness. Thank God, forgiveness is offered. We have only to recognise that we are sinful, that we need forgiveness, and that we must ask for forgiveness. This leads to salvation. Such is the message of Christ told to us so beautifully in the Parable of the Prodigal Son which we will soon mark. The danger in our times is that some activities the Church teaches are sinful, such as homosexual activity and other sins of sensuality, are no longer widely regarded as wrong. Therefore, there is no recognition of the need for forgiveness, and so no asking for it. The world has lost its sense of sin. The salvation that is on offer is thus forfeited.
Rick H.
14-02-2008, 05:16 PM
Sadly, very true Andreas:
"The word accidie means etymologically, 'lack of care', ie. about one's salvation. With few exceptions, all humanity is now living in a state of accidie. People have become indifferent about their salvation. They do not seek divine life. They confine themselves to forms of life which appertain to the flesh, to everyday needs, to the passions of this world, to mundane activities. God, though, created us out of nothing, in the image of the Absolute and after His likeness. If this revelation is true, then the absence of concern for salvation is nothing else than the death of the human person."
--Father Sophrony
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (KJV)
God did not create us to be sinful, but yet we sin. God has created a sinful creature. 'Tis an interesting conundrum.
Herman the Pooh
Actually with the verses of the Bible we can support many things (as we know happens with certain heterodox). But the issue is if we have the discernment and the enlightenment to.
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (KJV)
God did not create us to be sinful, but yet we sin. God has created a sinful creature. 'Tis an interesting conundrum.
Herman the Pooh
In the Old Testament through the mouth of the Prophet Isaiah, God says: “I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil” (Is. 45:7). Does this mean that God creates both evil and temptation, and for this reason we must ask Him not to throw us into them? Apostle James solved the problem for us, saying: “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth He any man. But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed” (Jas. 1:13-14).
Temptations come to man in two kinds. One is the pleasurable kind, and therefore occurs with both our own will and the collaboration of the demons. The other is the sorrowful and painful kind, which appears bitter to us, for it occurs without our will. The devil works on his own, to bring about this kind.
The Prophets call the various forms of the chastisement of God wrongs and evil, as we said above, though in reality they are not evil, and this is because those things which bring pain and hardship to man are customarily called evil by him, since this is how he perceives them. These things happen, not according to the original will of God, but according to the ensuing [that is, secondary] will of God, for the correction and good of man.
Our Lord joining the first kind of temptation (that is, the pleasurable kind) with the second kind (that is, the bitter and oppressive kind) calls both of them by one name, “temptation,” because the free will of man is tempted and tested by them. However, in order for us to understand this better, we must know that things are divided into three categories: good, evil, and relative.
The good are restraint, almsgiving, righteousness, and as many other like things, which can never be evil. The evil are sexual immorality, inhumanity, injustice, and as many other like things, which can never be good. The relative are wealth and poverty, health and sickness, life and death, glory and ignobility, pleasure and pain, freedom and slavery, and other like things, which at times are good and at times are bad, depending upon how they are used by the free will of man.
Men divide the relative into two. Some they call good because they desire them (for example, wealth, glory, pleasure, and so on). Others they call evil, because they do not desire them (for example, poverty, pain, dishonor, and the rest). Therefore, if we do not wish for the supposedly evil things to come upon us, let us not do the things that are truly evil, as the Prophet counsels us: “Give not thy foot unto moving, and may he not slumber that guardeth thee” (Ps. 120:3). That is to say, O man, do not walk in the ways of evil and sin, and the angel that guards you will certainly not let you suffer any evil.
The Prophet Isaiah says: “If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land. But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword” (Is. 1:19-20). That is to say, if you wish to listen to My commandments, you will enjoy the good things of the earth. But if you do not want to listen to Me, you will die by the sword of the enemy.
The devil first attacks us with pleasurable temptation, for he knows that we fall into it easily. And if he finds our will obedient to his, he draws us away from the grace of God which protects us. On account of his great hatred for us, he then requests permission from God to bring upon us bitter temptation, that is, sorrows and hardships, in order to destroy us completely and cause us to fall into despair on account of our many sufferings. If he does not find our will compliant, that is, if we do not fall to the pleasurable temptation, he still brings the second kind of temptation, hoping that through many sorrows he will be able to force us to carry out his evil intent.
For this reason, the Apostle Peter directs us: “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Pet. 5:8). God sometimes permits him to do this in order to test His servants, as in the case of Job and the other Saints. Or God allows temptations by means of His withdrawing, as happened to David because of the sin he committed and to the Apostle Peter because of his arrogance. Other times temptations come on account of God’s abandonment, as it happened to Judas and the Jews.
The temptations the saints experience by the permission of God come from the envy of the devil, and are permitted in order that they may manifest saintly righteousness and perfection, and thus shine all the more brightly on account of their victory over their opponent. The temptations which happen by God’s withdrawal occur in order to obstruct and cut off past, present, or future sins. The temptations which happen by God’s abandonment are caused by the sinful life of man and his evil will, and lead one to complete perdition.
Therefore, not only must we flee, as from venom of the evil serpent, the pleasurable and sinful kind of temptation, but, also, we must not by any means accept temptation of this kind that comes to us without our will. Concerning painful bodily temptations and trials, let us not conduct ourselves haphazardly, with pride and audacity. But let us ask God that they may not come to us, if that is His will, and that we may be pleasing to Him without undergoing these trials. And if they do come, we should accept them with complete thanksgiving and joy, as great blessings.
We should ask only this from Him: that He might give us the strength to conquer the tempter until the very end. For this is what “lead us not into temptation” means, that God might not let us fall defeated into the throat of the noetic dragon.
St. Nikodemos of Mount Athos (Agiorite)
Dear all,
Something that has not yet been brought up in this discussion, is the reality that freedom, like everything else, is effected by sin.
I am not free the way that Adam was free.
INXC, Dcn Matthew
If I understand you correctly Fr. Dcn. Matthew, I would say that the essence of our freedom compared to that of Adam, has changed on our advantage since Christ's Incarnation. With reservation I will add, provided that the person knows Christ. With reservation, because as Geronda Paisios has said, the first 'Holy Scripture' God gave to Adam and Eve was conscience; and all of us inherit that conscience from our parents like a photocopy. The power of conscience is revealed and affirmed by several examples throughout history - even people who lived in the midst of sin and idolatry and still became sensitive to the voice of conscience and turned to God. For instance, St. Kosmas Aetolos recounts the story of Abraham, who lived with his paternal family and still managed to question the idolatrous activities of his father and community, through the voice of his conscience. At the moment he became attentive to his conscience and at that very moment he heard from God.
Therefore I think that the problem is the silencing of the conscience's voice and not only today but throughout ages (think Lot versus the rest of inhabitants of Sodom). However God is merciful and He does not cease to show His love and mercy. And we are so blessed to live in the times of communication where information about Christ is readily available (like on monachos!).
Geronda Paisios says something interesting about Abel and Cain:
Did God create Abel one way and Cain another? No; but Abel took the mind that God gave him and used it the right way... Of course, God gave both of them the same freedom, but only Abel used it the right way. pp.242-243 from With Pain and Love for Contemporary Man
Rick H.
15-02-2008, 01:13 PM
A Theology of Freedom?
Romans 9:16
"It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy."
What doesn't depend on man's desire or effort?
Owen Jones
15-02-2008, 02:52 PM
My sense of the FAthers on this issue is that, a) not much is said about it and b) they used typologies and they recognized that there was an effeminate type of person. Instead of addressing the problem explicitly, they say that even the most effeminate person can be made manly through God's grace.
My sense of the FAthers on this issue is that, a) not much is said about it and b) they used typologies and they recognized that there was an effeminate type of person. Instead of addressing the problem explicitly, they say that even the most effeminate person can be made manly through God's grace.
And the definition of 'manly' is...?
I'm asking because, there isn't a good definition. I'm asking because things like being kind, being a good listener, being gentle, caring, and being considerate, preferring a book to football, etc. are generally seen as feminine, but look extremely masculine in a man. To me they do.
Seen the cooking shows? Men and women - the women cook like women, the men cook like men! Good grief! What makes a man a man, and what makes a woman a woman?
Ever watched a man playing with his child? It makes him look very masculine! Ever seen a man taking care of his old, invalid mother, with as much tenderness as a woman? (my uncle took care of my grandmother for at least 4 yrs when she was bedridden). That was quite masculine.
Ever seen a man with a great love for Orthodoxy? Very masculine! But when a woman is as much in love with God and the Church, it's very feminine.
Protecting your own... masculine or feminine? Both.
Talking too much.... ok. Time to quit.
Mary.
Rick H.
15-02-2008, 03:39 PM
Mary,
What you bring up is something I have hinted at before. I will not try to reword your question at all because you have asked it very well. I'm not sure if this should be in a new thread or not; but, I would really like to see some discussion here about this. I have never even listened to a discussion, or heard a presentation of this before. But, it matters because without defining THIS very aspect that you address we are not really saying much here in all of this.
Yes, as it relates to passiveness and aggressiveness, as it relates to nurturing and protecting, and so on . . . If we do not consider these in relation to Christian character (to put it very simply) . . . then what have we really said that does not speak only to the vulgar aspects of this conversation?
Thank you very much for bringing this up Mary. Whether here or in a new thread, I am looking forward to an examination/exploration of this question.
In Christ,
Rick
Fr Raphael Vereshack
15-02-2008, 03:53 PM
Rick Henry wrote:
If we do not consider these in relation to Christian character (to put it very simply) . . . then what have we really said that does not speak only to the vulgar aspects of this conversation?
The idea of Christian character used to be very much involved in such a discussion. It did not mean all the details of one's character but rather a certain demeanor and ethic.
Of course though in the past century or so this has been attacked as hypocrisy and finally it has been thrown out all together. Now these social virtues of a past age are barely remembered. They certainly are not taught or shown as a role model to our younger people- quite the contrary.
This I think as much as anything has led to the present moral crisis and impasse. When the concept of Christian character for men and women disappears, identity itself disappears.
The problem we face is not simply one of people acting morally vs morally. It is that without social identity- something every single culture has kept central to its idea of itself until now- a person turns into a non-identifiable & amorphous blob.
Which I think does explain much of the current sense of 'modern sexuality.'
In Christ- Fr Raphael
The idea of Christian character used to be very much involved in such a discussion. It did not mean all the details of one's character but rather a certain demeanor and ethic.
Of course though in the past century or so this has been attacked as hypocrisy and finally it has been thrown out all together. Now these social virtues of a past age are barely remembered. They certainly are not taught or shown as a role model to our younger people- quite the contrary.
This I think as much as anything has led to the present moral crisis and impasse. When the concept of Christian character for men and women disappears, identity itself disappears.
The problem we face is not simply one of people acting morally vs morally. It is that without social identity- something every single culture has kept central to its idea of itself until now- a person turns into a non-identifiable & amorphous blob.
Which I think does explain much of the current sense of 'modern sexuality.'
In Christ- Fr Raphael
This is so true! And Geronda Paisios says the same throughout his book 'With pain and love for contemporary man'. He says how in the past when people strayed (sinned) even a little bit they were embarrassed to face their community. Whereas today sin is in fashion (cool) and those leading a pious and virtuous life are ridiculed.
We have forgotten that virtues are timeless.
Owen you are right that Fathers are very reticent on the issue. But as Elder Paisios says in the book mentioned above, past Fathers could not even have imagined the sins of our times.
What is manly rightly Mary asks. I do not think it is manly to be married for many years and have a beautiful family with great wife and children and leave everything and go on to live with another male. I do not think it is manly to live with other males and try to have children with other homosexual women through unconventional means. And all these are not genetic. Since these are (although distorted) replicas of phenomena which happen with other sins of the flesh.
Andreas Moran
15-02-2008, 10:26 PM
When the concept of Christian character for men and women disappears, identity itself disappears.
The problem we face is not simply one of people acting morally vs morally. It is that without social identity- something every single culture has kept central to its idea of itself until now- a person turns into a non-identifiable & amorphous blob.
Which I think does explain much of the current sense of 'modern sexuality.'
St John Climacus writes in Step 15, verse 73:
The good Lord shows His great care for us in that the shamelesseness of the feminine sex is checked by shyness as with a sort of bit. For if the woman were to run after the man, no flesh would be saved.
Since girls have been running after the man since the 1960's (as I remember!) and are no longer 'shy' and 'checked', we have 'modern sexuality'.
A slight clarification, Andreas. "Modern" sexual practices and behaviour did not originate or become "accepted" in the "swinging '60s". They have been with us since ancient times. The names of the island of Lesbos and the ancient poetess Sappho are a case in point. No wonder the denizens of that island much prefer the name Mytilene.
What are you guys (Olga and Andreas) talking about 60s and ancient?
We know (the part from Olga's post that I understand) that homosexuality is old. Sodom and Gomorrah, Sappho etc. And there was fornication, adultery, prostitution since the ancient times.
I do not know what was going on in the 60s with woman running after the man. Why were many girls as Andreas says running after one man?
I do not know what was going on in the 60s with woman running after the man. Why were many girls as Andreas says running after one man?
Because all the other men were running after each other!
(Sorry. Couldn't resist).
Because all the other men were running after each other!
(Sorry. Couldn't resist).
You are making fun of me for not understanding?! Oh just wait and watch yourself not to slip. You do not know that Count of Monte Cristo is one of my heroes. :P
I was sincerely asking. Andreas wording in this case is difficult to decode:
Since girls have been running after the man Why 'the man'?
and
Why 'girls'?
Paul Cowan
16-02-2008, 04:09 AM
Just to take a stab at this and it has nothing any more to do with this thread is feminism really took off in the 60's. Women declared their "independence" from the "man's world". The burned their under garments in protest. Men did not have to wear them, why should they?
Also WWII and Korea and Vietnam took alot of men off "the Market" so to speak. So there were not enough men to go around. So the women/ girls had to chase the men and show off trying to grab the last few or one there was available.
Have you ever seen a peacock strut its stuff trying to impress a potential mate? Same thing. Only now 40 years later the perversion has taken hold in the media and we are left with the exhibitionism we have today. Although today with our male population restored, the females have not yet reverted to their proper modest place.
IMO
Paul
Andreas Moran
16-02-2008, 03:05 PM
We all know there has been a change in sexual behaviour in the last 40 years. We have even had legislation to provide for it. After nearly 2,000 years of Christianity, the morality which it put forth has largely been abandoned. Of course all sorts of sexual behaviour has existed, and there has been a lot of hypocracy as well. But for most people in most places, the Christian moral ethic regulated life in ways it does not now. And girls do chase boys as once boys chased girls. That which St John Climacus said showed the Lord's care for us we no longer have. Res ipsa loquitur.
PS Of course, I would say this now, wouldn't I? I had a different view as an art student in the late 1960's.
Fr Raphael Vereshack
16-02-2008, 04:21 PM
Yes, we could also though say that wars have gone on throughout all of time. They have always been terrible.
But this still does not deny the fact that what we saw in the last century and continues on into this is qualitatively different.
I recall a book by John Keegan who is a British military historian. He pointed out that in the Napoleonic wars- the 'world war' of its' time'- a farmer 50 or 100 miles away from the battle of Waterloo may have had hardly any awareness of what was going on. However such has rarely been the case from WWI onwards where whole nations have been involved in life and death struggles to survive.
The point is not that immorality did not exist before. Rather it is that the conditions we see in front of us on every level & which match exactly what our holy Fathers are pointing out to us, are more debased.
Yesterday I was having lunch with a parishioner and we were discussing this issue of society & morality. For centuries our society had been formed & inspired by a sense of Christian virtues. But yet fewer & fewer grounded this in active faith and commitment to Christ. Into the the 1950s- 60s the majority of people in our society attended church. But yet the church was less and less marked off from the prosperous society which it found itself in the midst of.
By the 1970s Christianity had largely become the religious arm of society. In this condition it is no wonder that the majority of church attenders woke up and decided that since there was no difference between the church & society we might as well focus entirely on the world, that the world become in unhypocritical fashion the entire focus of life. After all, if the world is our main focus, then why bother to wake up early on Sunday morning to hear some honey coated version of the world's message when I can accomplish this in a more distilled way by staying in bed after a night of 'entertainment'? If the world is the center of our attention then the latter is more 'pure worship' than the church could ever be.
Of course though if we have gone one step beyond this- which most of us have- then we see the Church's message as being completely antithetical to our worldly focus. It is literally the worship of Saturday night catering to one's own desires-Sunday morning late in bed- late brunch- vs the Church's ascetic measure: go to Vespers/Vigil on Saturday evening-confess your sins- then spend a quiet & reflective night- get up early- do not eat breakfast-stand with attention for about 2 hours or so at a church service.
Put like this I think it becomes more clear that what we have is two diametrically different ways of life. This is because the way of life marked by the Church has been consciously disowned by society in order to create its own way of life. As they say it's an 'alternative life-style.'
We must not make the mistake however of thinking this is just more of the same of what we have always seen in the relationship between the Church & society. It is true that the path we took to get here is the same that began during a more godly time. But the turn this path has taken in the past while has seen a radical change from what came before.
And we in the Church must discern the reality of this in order to know how to properly respond.
In Christ- Fr Raphael
Justin Farr
16-02-2008, 07:24 PM
Well, since we are now sort on the issue, I think Fr. Stephen Freeman's "One Story Universe" series of sorts addresses the situation well, at fatherstephen.wordpress.com .
Karen Hammer
16-02-2008, 08:12 PM
When it came to sins (any kind of sin), I did more than my fair share in my youth. At the time, I thought I was driven by this circumstance or that to do this or that. I was mightly confused about what life demanded of me and I listened to plenty of lies (in the absence of the truth).
But even though I had scant Christian teachings in youth, I still knew right from wrong almost as an instinct. I knew instinctively that God was watching at all times. Often I had even been drawn to Godly things in my early days, but in time a growing cynicism and lies drew me away. The problem for me then was: "God was watching but He didn't seem to stop evil. He didn't protect. So as goodness was an exceedingly fragile thing in this world, it was therefore dangerous to be good." Still I hated that conclusion, but with tears I dragged myself into it, having at last become convinced that the world could be nothing other than this horridness. What pessismistic fatalism and nihilism was at work here! It was an abyss of reasoning, dark in the extreme, and it quickly spoiled my whole youth for me and much of life since.
Every day I pray for complete deliverance from all those lies and the damage they did.
Now, as old age encroaches, I have been thinking a lot about those days and why I had gone so much against what I instinctively knew to be right. Why did I give in so much to despair (which is what sinning really is)? I don't altogether know, except to say I allowed myself to settle for much less as a child of the devil than I could have had as a child of God, and most of all, that I was a faithless coward to resist lies when I heard them.
That is how I see the sins of homosexuality which are these days given such a pass and has become "normal" and acceptable behavior. It's just one part of the Great Lie that I've heard since the 1960s . I remember hearing from a college professor thirty years ago about his enthusiasm for "open marriage" (i.e. adultery) which was the new "normal". I'm getting very tired of hearing how sin isn't really sin, but just different strokes for different folks--as if nothing one does really matters. That's so fatalistic and nihilistic.
It does matter. For one thing, there's a price to be paid for one's attitude and it's very high if you make the wrong choice.
Alec Lowly
16-02-2008, 09:58 PM
We all know there has been a change in sexual behaviour in the last 40 years. We have even had legislation to provide for it. After nearly 2,000 years of Christianity, the morality which it put forth has largely been abandoned. Of course all sorts of sexual behaviour has existed, and there has been a lot of hypocracy as well. But for most people in most places, the Christian moral ethic regulated life in ways it does not now. And girls do chase boys as once boys chased girls. That which St John Climacus said showed the Lord's care for us we no longer have. Res ipsa loquitur.
PS Of course, I would say this now, wouldn't I? I had a different view as an art student in the late 1960's.
I'm not sure I agree, Andreas, that "there has been a change in sexual behaviour in the last 40 years." I think there is probably as much adulterous behavior, homosexual behavior, etc., as there ever was. The difference is that it's no longer secret.
Paul Cowan
16-02-2008, 11:27 PM
Man has not changed in 7000+ years. The only thing on this world that has changed his man's technology. We are still as debase as we ever have been.
Andreas Moran
17-02-2008, 12:36 AM
I'm not sure I agree, Andreas, that "there has been a change in sexual behaviour in the last 40 years." I think there is probably as much adulterous behavior, homosexual behavior, etc., as there ever was. The difference is that it's no longer secret.
Sorry but I really do think there has been a change. It is now a criminal offence to object to things that were criminal offences 45 years ago. Doesn't that reflect something?
Paul Cowan
17-02-2008, 01:59 AM
When politicians write law, they sometimes forget to retract older laws. Yes, it is now a crime to object to homosexuals as it is deemed hate crime, but it is also a crime to perform the acts of homosexuality. It is a crime, at least in these parts to engage in sodomy and other "deviant behavior", yet though we must now "approve" of homosexuality, there has not been a law to overturn the engagement of sodomy or these other acts.
Interesting how we are forced to accept something which in practise is still illegal.
It is even illegal to engage in certain acts even within the privacy of your own home even for heterosexuals, but lets not start discussing Big Brother.
Paul
Andreas Moran
17-02-2008, 02:01 AM
but it is also a crime to perform the acts of homosexuality.
Not here it isn't.
Paul Cowan
17-02-2008, 03:15 AM
At least half of the states here consider it illegal (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/sex14.htm).
James Blackstock
19-02-2008, 02:20 PM
I have an old Orthodox book that is out of print. It was originall written for teenagers to instruct them in the passions. This is a quote from the book;
The worst thing about a woman’s advertising herself physically is that it allows vanity to get a firm toe-hold in her system, and from then on, that vanity works to distort her female nature. It keeps her from being a natural woman. In the beginning, vanity only urges you to beautify your own sexual characteristics, that’s just to make you trust it and think it’s just innocent fun. But after that it twists your nature, making it more and more fake and finally altogether unnatural. So it gradually makes a woman mannish and takes away her naturally womanly traits. In the extreme, with both men and women, vanity makes people unable to be healthily attracted to the opposite sex, because they are so infatuated with their own images that they are attracted strongly only to their own sex. It is the cause of homosexuality.
St. Maximus
the confessor
“Vanity counterfeits nature itself. When a man has vanity, nothing about him is natural.”
Maximus the Confessor
James Blackstock
19-02-2008, 02:22 PM
Sorry about all the text formatting stuff, I couldn't figure out how to eliminate it :(
Rick H.
19-02-2008, 04:09 PM
Thanks for the above quote James. I see Wisdom in what the author has shared. And, I appreciate the distinction that has been drawn as he moves to distinguish between what is 'natural' and what is 'unnatural' for a person.
But, again here, somewhat as Mary raised the issue last week, this conversation remains on the fringe of what is being considered, although we did take a dip into the meat and potatoes with your contribution.
As Father Raphael said earlier in this thread (post #53), "The idea of Christian character used to be very much involved in such a discussion." So in many ways, it occurs to me that this discussion itself may be representative of what is being addressed in a larger conversation within the Church, and what is not being addressed/taught.
And, to push this just a bit more, we can all take turns saying what we think is manly or what we think is womanly from our own perspectives and environmental experiences, but even there, what do we have at the end of the day?
So where does this leave us?
In his same post, Father Raphael also spoke of "a certain demeanor and ethic" as opposed to all the details of one's character when we consider a "Christian character." And, I remain convinced that it is on this neglected ground where a most fertile field waits to be tilled which can yield practical helps for those who need them, as well as a clearer understanding of the issues surrounding this topic.
I understand that this is a multi-faceted conversation; however, void of a real consideration of the trump card (viz. this certain demeanor and ethic) it seems we are condemned to follow suit on one another, a merry go round ride here I think with a smattering of calls from the various horsemen/women, as they go by, for "manly men" and "womanly women" . . . talk about an "amorphous blob!"
In Christ,
Rick
James Blackstock
19-02-2008, 05:53 PM
Thanks for the above quote James. I see Wisdom in what the author has shared. And, I appreciate the distinction that has been drawn as he moves to distinguish between what is 'natural' and what is 'unnatural' for a person.
But, again here, somewhat as Mary raised the issue last week, this conversation remains on the fringe of what is being considered, although we did take a dip into the meat and potatoes with your contribution.
As Father Raphael said earlier in this thread (post #53), "The idea of Christian character used to be very much involved in such a discussion." So in many ways, it occurs to me that this discussion itself may be representative of what is being addressed in a larger conversation within the Church, and what is not being addressed/taught.
And, to push this just a bit more, we can all take turns saying what we think is manly or what we think is womanly from our own perspectives and environmental experiences, but even there, what do we have at the end of the day?
So where does this leave us?
In his same post, Father Raphael also spoke of "a certain demeanor and ethic" as opposed to all the details of one's character when we consider a "Christian character." And, I remain convinced that it is on this neglected ground where a most fertile field waits to be tilled which can yield practical helps for those who need them, as well as a clearer understanding of the issues surrounding this topic.
I understand that this is a multi-faceted conversation; however, void of a real consideration of the trump card (viz. this certain demeanor and ethic) it seems we are condemned to follow suit on one another, a merry go round ride here I think with a smattering of calls from the various horsemen/women, as they go by, for "manly men" and "womanly women" . . . talk about an "amorphous blob!"
In Christ,
Rick
I fear many will skip the meat & potatoes and go straight for the appetizers =(
Victor Mihailoff
26-02-2008, 07:17 AM
Are homosexuals born gay? Did God create them in the womb to be gay?
Con Zalalas, dean of an Orthodox theological school has translated to English the works of Archmandrite Athanasios Mitilinaios who is regarded by many to be a modern day theologian. He has made over a thousand audio cassettes which Con Zalalas translates into English language audio cassettes. In Australia some are availabe on CD.
On one of the cassettes/CDs, is explained that homosexuality comes from early activities by a pedophile who has frequent access to the child when he/she is about four years old. I even knew an Orthodox young man (not a frequent visiter of churches) who told me that he used to be a homosexual because since childhood he played sex games with boys but did not know why or when it started. When he was in his late teens, a girl fell in love with him and after he experienced physical affection with her, he gave up all homosexual activity for good. That is rare I am sure, but does make a point in regards to someone who never experienced heterosexuality before and yet had early influences in the other direction.
Also it has been found that frequent use canabis in adolecents can produce homosexual tendencies by being with same sex smokers when high. I do not know if there are any similar findings regarding ecstasy, but I was told by ecstasy users that the drug makes them very physically affectionate towards both genders. But they referred to affection only, like hugs and carresses.
It is also known that when adults are deprived of contact with the opposite sex for extended periods of time, and they are not practicing a religious moral control over themselves, they can use the same sex as a substitute due to their excessive libido. Commonly known to occur in prisons and on long tern sea postings for navy personel.
I am sure that this does not apply to people who are born with one apparent gender on the outside but have the biological inner makings of the other.
Mina Mounir
17-03-2008, 07:34 PM
Did God fashion homosexuals to be gay in the womb? Are homosexuals born gay?
hi ... when I saw this question , I could not answer because I don't know if this question is scientific or religious , but I believe that science should have answered this question , but I don't know.
what did science say?
Justin Farr
18-03-2008, 02:02 AM
Science doesn't have conclusive evidence either way.
Christopher Dombrowski
11-03-2009, 10:44 PM
Are homosexuals born gay? Did God create them in the womb to be gay?
Hmmm. It's unfortunate that you ask two questions but expect one answer for both of them. That I cannot do. I do believe that infants are born largely or even entirely determined towards homosexual orientation (if they are to be homosexual later in life). However, I would not go so far as to say that God "fashioned them" to be such.
Christopher Dombrowski
11-03-2009, 10:46 PM
The men were so full of sin they did not even want to rape Lot's virgin daughters.
That's a convoluted statement if I've ever heard one.
I voted yes, because I do not believe being gay is a sin but acting on it is.
This is the most standard attitude in the EOC. Only the most fundamentalistesque of believers actually suggest that being gay is a sin.
it means we are born with the taint of original sin (not guilt)
That's rather Roman sounding language with respect to original sin: "taint". I've never heard anyone else in the EOC use such language.
Homosexuality is not a natural state of man. We are not born homosexual.
What we are born with and what is our primordial, God-created nature are certainly not identical things. Homosexuality can be unnatural still with people being born homosexual.
My two cents:
First of all, the thought-act distinction between "being gay" and "acting on it" strikes me as a troubling one. Surely, Our Lord made plain that it is equally sinful to lust after a woman to whom one is not married, as to commit fornication. How can we say, then, if we believe that homosexuality is a sin, that one can be a homosexual, in the sense of actively entertaining thoughts of same-sex union and not immediately repelling them, without falling into sin?
Secondly, if we do admit the possibility that we can be disposed towards homosexuality, whether because of genetic or environmental factors, that is not to say we need embrace it as "inescapable" and therefore "natural" and therefore "morally neutral," any more than we should embrace alcoholism as such because it is equally influenced by such factors. It is when we say, with the Marquis de Sade, that what is, is right, that we lose our way. I don't think it's possible to say that some people are "born gay" and at the same time attribute a moral failing to such people when they pursue homosexual relationships. Yet is that not what the plain text of the Scriptures tell us that we should do? Faced with such a contradiction, are we, as Christians, to conclude that God has made certain individuals sinners from the womb? God forbid.
Paul Cowan
12-03-2009, 05:19 AM
Sorry, I have not learned how to multi-quote...
The men were so full of sin they did not even want to rape Lot's virgin daughters.
That's a convoluted statement if I've ever heard one.
Why do you say convoluted? The Bible says Lot offered his daughters to the crowd and they refused in preference for the 2 men (angels). How is this convoluted?
Homosexuality is not a natural state of man. We are not born homosexual.
What we are born with and what is our primordial, God-created nature are certainly not identical things. Homosexuality can be unnatural still with people being born homosexual.
We are not nor is it our primordial God-created nature to be homosexual.
God created a virtually perfect creature. We then messed it all up. We also messed each other up. God didn't do it, we did it to ourselves. Of course we had demonic assistance.
Fabio Lins
12-03-2009, 06:07 AM
I haven't read all the thread, so I apologize if I am repeating anything.
For one thing "gay" is a behaviour, an inclination of sexuality towards the same sex. Said that, it seems obvious to me that it may have different causes in different people. Some may do it for the sake of pleasure itself. Others for psychological reasons and other for.. being born that way.
Some people are born with the tendency to alcoholism. Some people are born psychopaths or cleptomaniacs. Others are born with the gifts of music, mathmetics and some seem to have been born saints.
So, if some people are born with "genetic" inclinations even to murder which is a far worse sin, I do not see why some would not be born with the inclination to some kinds of promiscuity: homossexualism, having many partners (even from different sex) etc.
What this shows is only that those who do not have these compulsions should be very less judgmental. Some people do these things not because they are weaker, but because human fallen nature has expressed itself in them in a particular challenging way, not different from many physical problems that also are genetical.Resisting some sins is, for some people, like resisting alcohol for an alcoholic and, just like for this particular problem, not always determining the cause is what matters.
Now, of course, being born in a certain way, does not mean that it is what God intended in His primary will although it was certainly allowed by Him. God allows a person to be born alcoholic, or to be born in a certain social-psychological environment that will lead to it, not because He wants the person to become an alcoholic, but because He wants the person to fight it and the people around the person to be loving toward him/her. Not all of our crosses are about those who carry them, but some are about touching those who see it.
Paul Cowan
12-03-2009, 06:29 AM
Fabio,
If I sound judgemental, you are not reading my intent versus my words. I am not judgemnetal today. I used to be until I had an opportunity to work with recovering homosexuals via a 12 step recovery program. True, people should not judge. But many here and across society think they know what they are talking about when they accept this behavior as being born with it. I have dealt with countless homosexuals who were ALL abused sexually as youth. Many have blocked out the episode(s) and have a hard time recalling them. Once they do, they admit it was due to the assualt of others that chemically changed their brains to favor this abuse as normal. Read Patrick Carnes (http://books.google.com/books?as_auth=Patrick+Carnes&source=an&ei=PI64SZ-2LNSBtgeU2aySBg&sa=X&oi=book_group&resnum=4&ct=title&cad=author-navigational)to learn more of this addiction. Don't let 21st century liberal society muddle the truth behind what God created as pure and man over the mellenia polluted.
Alcholics and drug addicts can be chemically induced in the womb due to their mothers' bahaviors and are yes "born with it". Homosexuality is chemically altered after birth and is a learned trait.
Father David Moser
12-03-2009, 06:49 AM
Dear friends,
Let's not get sidetracked in the homosexuality nature or nurture arguement. Remember this thread is about how Orthodoxy responds to someone afflicted with this passion - let us focus on this rather than on the "gay agenda" red herrings.
Fr David Moser
Christopher Dombrowski
12-03-2009, 08:07 AM
Why do you say convoluted? The Bible says Lot offered his daughters to the crowd and they refused in preference for the 2 men (angels). How is this convoluted?
To say that a group of people chose not to rape young female virgins because they were "so full of sin" just sounds rather silly. I'm not talking about the reference to the biblical passage. I'm talking about attributing the reasoning of their refusal to be because "they were so full of sin". It just doesn't make sense.
We are not nor is it our primordial God-created nature to be homosexual.
God created a virtually perfect creature. We then messed it all up. We also messed each other up. God didn't do it, we did it to ourselves. Of course we had demonic assistance.
You seemed to have missed the point. I was trying to indicate that people being born homosexual does not necessarily mean that it is natural. That it is possible to recognize that people are born homosexual while still believing that is contrary the divinely established nature of Man.
Father David Moser
12-03-2009, 04:44 PM
I was trying to indicate that people being born homosexual does not necessarily mean that it is natural. That it is possible to recognize that people are born homosexual while still believing that is contrary the divinely established nature of Man.
Exactly. If a person is born with some kind of predisposition to become homosexual (not saying that's the way it is - just saying if that's true - I don't want to get into the nature/nurture issue as its irrelevant) then that is no different from being born with some other birth defect (like an undeveloped limb, or missing an eye, or with a heart murmur, or diabetes or whatever). Just because birth defects exist does not make it "normal" or "God designed" - it just reaffirms that all of creation is fallen and that sometimes that fallenness results in the twisting of "normal" into "abnormal". Whether a person was born with a passion or learned a passion is of no consequence. In the end, we are all struggling against our own passions together and we must have compassion on one another and help one another as best we can. The essence of our Christian faith is that with God's help, we can conquer the passions and are no longer their slaves, but instead we are united to Christ and ruled by the virtues which are instilled by His grace in us.
Fr David Moser
Seda S.
12-03-2009, 06:10 PM
I was able to read only the first several and the last posts of this thread, so if I'm repeating someone, sorry.
If homosexuality can be sometimes a birth defect, like blindness etc, then, though the reason of this is the fallen state of the creation, yet nothing happens without God's will or permission. And this makes one think that all those birth defects, also those that occur later in one's life, are the Lord's mercy for us, some tools for salvation, both for those who have those defects and those who do not but have to deal with this kind of people. There is a blind scientist here, a philologist, he can't read himself, others read for him, but he has such a perfect memory and is so talented, knows many languages, that he is one of the best specialists in this field in Armenia and has written many important books. Once someone said, 'If he does all of this being blind, then how much more could he do, if he could see'. Another one answered, 'It is possible that if he were not blind, he would not be able to do even the half of what he has done with his blind eyes'. So even if some are really born with the inclination to homosexuality, if they are on the right spiritual part, their defect may serve to their salvation more than if they were 'normal' males or females. I believe that everything, both good and bad, happy or painful, all tragedies even, are allowed by God's ineffable wisdom as tools and helpers for our salvation, if we have the correct mind.
Andreas Moran
12-03-2009, 09:50 PM
It is, of course, necessary to distinguish the condition of homosexuality and homosexual activity. The former may not always lead to the latter, and some Christians (and, one supposes, some of other faiths) may struggle with their inclination though possibly not always succeeding and thus engaging in the latter. Different is the view that the condition is in some way natural and thus so is the activity. Faith, as we all know, has declined since the eighteenth century and that decline accelerated in very recent times. The morality inherent in the Christian faith now seems not only the burden that St Theophan the Recluse saw it to be for people in his day but contrary to freedom and rights. God's commandments relate to the true nature of man and suited his nature but now seem unnatural and contrary to his nature because the Christian view of man as fallen and in need of salvation is now largely unknown. Even for practising Christians the passions and the impulse to gratify them remain even though we try to lead a life in Christ. For others, self-gratification has become more or less the reason for living. Inclinations are to be justified, not fought against. The passions are no longer the enemy: the enemy is whatever prevents self-gratification. More than ever, the Christian is a stranger in his own country. Without faith there is no inhibition, no restraint. However gently put, the Christian injunction to morality means nothing to one who has no proper faith or no faith at all. The word 'sin' has no meaning for many. Much of this applies generally, of course.
Christopher Dombrowski
13-03-2009, 08:43 AM
I was able to read only the first several and the last posts of this thread, so if I'm repeating someone, sorry.
If homosexuality can be sometimes a birth defect, like blindness etc, then, though the reason of this is the fallen state of the creation, yet nothing happens without God's will or permission. And this makes one think that all those birth defects, also those that occur later in one's life, are the Lord's mercy for us, some tools for salvation, both for those who have those defects and those who do not but have to deal with this kind of people. There is a blind scientist here, a philologist, he can't read himself, others read for him, but he has such a perfect memory and is so talented, knows many languages, that he is one of the best specialists in this field in Armenia and has written many important books. Once someone said, 'If he does all of this being blind, then how much more could he do, if he could see'. Another one answered, 'It is possible that if he were not blind, he would not be able to do even the half of what he has done with his blind eyes'. So even if some are really born with the inclination to homosexuality, if they are on the right spiritual part, their defect may serve to their salvation more than if they were 'normal' males or females. I believe that everything, both good and bad, happy or painful, all tragedies even, are allowed by God's ineffable wisdom as tools and helpers for our salvation, if we have the correct mind.
I do have a high amount of respect for your view here. It's a very strong dash of theo-anthropological optimism. However, I don't know that I really agree with it as my own opinion. There are just some effects of the Fall, some conditions that people have to suffer, that I can't even begin to imagine God having in mind as "part of his plan" for goodness. Also, I don't really agree that simply because things are and happen that this indicates that God is really permissive of them. Think of death for example. I think the Resurrection of Christ and His intent to share it with us is clear indication that at least now He is not permissive of the power of death. Sure, it continues to happen. But I think this is simply because we have not yet attained the realization of the Resurrection, not that God is really permissive of the continuation of death. That we have not yet attained the perfection of the Resurrection is more so an indication of our limiation and our difficulty meeting God's intent, not an indication that God's plan itself is limited.
Anyway, I don't mean to sound overly critical here, because I actually did enjoy your opinion. I just didn't find that I could fully agree with it, and was figuring maybe you could get something out of my own thoughts.
Seda S.
13-03-2009, 05:49 PM
Anyway, I don't mean to sound overly critical here, because I actually did enjoy your opinion. I just didn't find that I could fully agree with it, and was figuring maybe you could get something out of my own thoughts.
Thank you, dear Christopher. I'd like to get something out of your thoughts for myself, as you say, I'm always a learner, I like to learn and easily agree to change my opinion, if someone really convinces me in another opinion. But, to be frank, this is not that case. I strongly believe that everything, both good and bad, happens, if not by will then by the permission of God, and that everything is mercy, if we are able to accept that mercy and subject ourselves to it in the humility of heart. It is like what happened to the just Job, and he said, 'The Lord gave, the Lord took away'. And added, 'Glory be to him'. Yes, the Lord did it, though through satan. He permitted satan to harm Job and his family. One could bring many other examples too and could explain this in a better way than I can do. The book by St John of Tobolsk, 'Iliotropion', about which some time ago there was a thread here and which, unfortunately, hasn't been yet translated into English, deals mainly with this subject. And there are many other passages, sermons etc from the Fathers' writings too that make me think so.
We can't measure or describe God's goodness and mercy with our own measures. God is higher of everything, even of His own names (like good, merciful, love etc) whereby we are accustomed to describe and 'understand' Him and His divine providence. In reality, we can't understand Him, we can only agree with Him.
Only thinking like this I personally can find all the answers to those endless questions that bother us, like why God allowed this or that tragedy happen, or why He says that He is the creator of light and darkness, good and evil, why He says, 'I kill and I give life... I do all of this', where is God when millions of people are massacred, slaughtered as irrational animals etc etc. To explain all of this by just stating that the whole creation is fallen, all became evil etc (which is of course true), for my small head with its understanding, means to separate the living, always acting and omnipresent God from the life of His creation which is somewhat penetrated with Him who is 'all in all'.
And yes, I'm 'theo-anthropologically optimistic', as you say :), if one understands this in the sense of the strong faith in God's immeasurable love for His creation.
With love,
S.
Michael Astley
13-03-2009, 08:39 PM
Ah, but you're working on the premise that homosexuality is a sin. If it's genetic, like Down's Syndrome, then all of a sudden, it's a handicap, something that you have no control over, something that you did not choose, something that you are bound by against your will - and therefore.... you're not responsible for your feelings or your acts!
And they have a lot of people convinced of that, as I found out this past Sunday, in a conversation with a faithful cradle orthodox of over 70 years. He was troubled about the Church's attitude towards homosexuals,whom he thinks can't help the way they are. He's convinced they're being persecuted and treated badly because of it. He's got a friend who said to him: "Do you think I chose to be this way? Do you think I like being persecuted? Do you think I don't want to be normal like everyone else, get married and have children, etc?" Guilt trip. And he bought it, hook, line and sinker.
I know that I'm responding to you over a year later, Mary, and hope that you will forgive my dragging up this past post but I have read this entire thread in light of its recent resuscitation, and this in particular stuck out at me.
My main point of disagreement is with the premise on which your post is based. From an Orthodox perspective of creation as we know it being fallen, it does not seem to me to follow that, just because a person is born a particular way, that this means that this state is in keeping with the will of God and that the person is guiltless in living in accordance with this state if a choice is involved. The world is fallen. The sins of our fist parents removed mankind from the path of theosis into which we were to continue to grow through our relationship with God. This affects the world, and certainly mankind, as we know it. We hear every Sunday at the Hours and at numerous other points throughout the week as we say psalm 50:
For behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother bear me.
From the moment of our conception, we suffer the effects of Adam's sin and we exist in a world which suffers the effects of Adam's sin. It is not God's will that some people are born blind. However, humanity as it currently exists is fallen, and that fallenness affects different people in different ways. Therefore, some people, born into the fallen human race, are born blind. God does not will for people to be born blind. However, that is not any fault or the choice of the people who are born that way. Other people, perhaps not born with a physical disability, are born with a chemical imbalance in the brain which affects their behaviour. We know that some people are born with genetic abnormalities which affect their growth and development. Some people inherit genetic and chemical problems which affect how much or how little they eat. Other people inherit chemical imbalances which affect how they respond to various stimuli and how they interact with other people. These are all effects of the fall, the results of which manifest themselves differently in different people. Therefore, it seems to me to be no big jump to accept that it is possible that some people, from the beginning of their existence, have some form of predisposition to be emotionally, physically, and sexually attracted to people of the same sex.
As an Orthodox Christian, this does not pose a theological problem for me in the slightest. It is Orthodox teaching that mankind is fallen, so there is no need to deny the possibility that this fallenness can affect some people from birth or from their development in the womb. How can we say that mankind is fallen while simultaneously saying that nobody is born with tendencies to act out of keeping with the will of God? To do so would be to suggest that growth and devlopment in the womb are not part of human life, and that seems to me to be a very dangerous road to tread indeed.
However, this is a discussion about tendency and temptation. I think that the argument that says that if a person is born with an inclination towards a particular temptation, he cannot be blamed for acting on it is a flawed one. It may be a truism but different people are different. Different people's passions are fallen in different ways. I am sure that we - all of us - have found ourselves in the situation where we have learnt, whether by word of mouth or by watching the news, of some sin that a person has committed, and found ourselves completely at a loss to understand how or why a human being could act in that way. It is very easy to be judgemental in these circumstances but it is our duty, as Orthodox Christians, to take a step back from that initial reaction of shock and possible disgust, and examine our own hearts, and wonder why we have reacted in this way, reminding ourselves not to judge our brothers and sisters in Christ and in the family of mankind. In the majority of cases, it is simply case that we have been confronted by somebody giving in to temptations that he has but that we personally do not share. And this is what we must remember. We cannot simply declare that somebody's temptations, (not actions, but specifically temptations), cannot possibly be in place from birth simply because we do not have those same temptations and do not understand them.
I do not have the same temptations as the gentleman who kept his daughter and children/grandchildren locked up out of sunlight for their entire lives so I do not understand why he was tempted to do this. I have friends who do not have my temptations to overeat and so do not understand when I do this and then have to suffer the long and arduous process of undoing the consequences. I do not have the same temptations as some of my friends who get extremely angry at the slightest mishap with their plans, and demonstrate this verbally and sometimes physically, so I do not understand when they become agitated over what to me seem like a small matters that can be easily resolved. It is possible that all of these temptations stem from chemical or genetic abnormalities from birth. It is possible that these things stem from environmental factors in our upbringing. It is possible that they stem from a combination of the two, or neither, along with other factors. We do not know. What we do know is that none of us has chosen to be tempted in these particular ways and that, in all of the above cases, what matters is how we choose to respond to those temptations.
The same is true of people who are attracted to people of the same sex. It is like any other temptation in that it could have any of a number of root causes and is not chosen by the people who struggle with it. However, the choice of how to respond to this temptation is that of the person. There are many faithful Orthodox Christians who are homosexual. Their physical, emotional, and sexual attraction is not to people of the opposite sex, yet they live in accordance with the will of Christ and the will of the Church, in the hope of working out their salvation by the grace of God, along with the rest of their Orthodox brothers and sisters in Christ who come to the Fountain of Immoratality with their various temptations, hoping and praying for the same thing. It is just so unfortunate that there are many in the Church who attach stigma to this particular temptation that they do not to others, causing some of their brothers and sisters to feel very isolated in some cases, feeling unable to seek support from their siblings in Christ when their temptations are at their worst, save for some exceptions where they know they will find a sympathetic ear.
We know that Blessed Seraphim of Platina struggled with this temptation but that his choice after his conversion was not to act on it but instead to pray for the mercy of God in living his life in accordance with God's will, growing into the likeness and energies of God.
May he continue to pray for us, and for others with similar temptations to those that he faced and overcame.
In Christ,
Reader Michael
Christopher Dombrowski
14-03-2009, 12:21 AM
Thank you, dear Christopher. I'd like to get something out of your thoughts for myself, as you say, I'm always a learner, I like to learn and easily agree to change my opinion, if someone really convinces me in another opinion. But, to be frank, this is not that case. I strongly believe that everything, both good and bad, happens, if not by will then by the permission of God, and that everything is mercy, if we are able to accept that mercy and subject ourselves to it in the humility of heart. It is like what happened to the just Job, and he said, 'The Lord gave, the Lord took away'. And added, 'Glory be to him'. Yes, the Lord did it, though through satan. He permitted satan to harm Job and his family. One could bring many other examples too and could explain this in a better way than I can do. The book by St John of Tobolsk, 'Iliotropion', about which some time ago there was a thread here and which, unfortunately, hasn't been yet translated into English, deals mainly with this subject. And there are many other passages, sermons etc from the Fathers' writings too that make me think so.
We can't measure or describe God's goodness and mercy with our own measures. God is higher of everything, even of His own names (like good, merciful, love etc) whereby we are accustomed to describe and 'understand' Him and His divine providence. In reality, we can't understand Him, we can only agree with Him.
Only thinking like this I personally can find all the answers to those endless questions that bother us, like why God allowed this or that tragedy happen, or why He says that He is the creator of light and darkness, good and evil, why He says, 'I kill and I give life... I do all of this', where is God when millions of people are massacred, slaughtered as irrational animals etc etc. To explain all of this by just stating that the whole creation is fallen, all became evil etc (which is of course true), for my small head with its understanding, means to separate the living, always acting and omnipresent God from the life of His creation which is somewhat penetrated with Him who is 'all in all'.
And yes, I'm 'theo-anthropologically optimistic', as you say :), if one understands this in the sense of the strong faith in God's immeasurable love for His creation.
With love,
S.
Perhaps I am becoming somewhat caught up in terminology here. I understand a clear distinction between allowing and permitting. Allowing, on one hand, is simply the status of not intervening to the point where some is able to come to pass. In this definition, I see nothing wrong with understanding God to be allowing certain evils (while others he happens to intervene and prevent). Permitting, on the other hand, is that status of giving consent to the actions of another, almost as if giving them your blessing to do such a thing. In this understanding of permission, I cannot understand God to be permissive of evils. Have I made this distinction clearly? Do you agree that with this understanding of permission that it is not correct to say that God permits evil?
In Christ,
Cyril
Philip H.
20-03-2009, 03:34 PM
Thank you to everyone who commented on this survey! It’s interesting to see what other Orthodox think about this issue! I have a fair number of gay and lesbian friends and acquaintances and I must confess I don’t find them all that different from my straight friends and acquaintances. When it comes down to it most people my age range from somewhat to very promiscuous regardless of their orientation. Whether homosexuality is a sin or not is an interesting question. More and more Protestants and Roman Catholics are classifying it with the Old Testament’s prohibitions against shellfish and the like, but the arguments can seem weak at times. Then again, no one here mentioned the rite of brotherhood and its potential implications for the issue at hand.
As someone who’s gay I must confess that none of what was written above is terribly convicting or convincing to me. It used to be when I was fresh out of the legalistic Protestant church I grew up in, but the older I get the less sense it makes to me. Especially when the rite of brotherhood (and its fairly universal presence in Western and Eastern Europe) is brought into the picture. When that is taken into consideration my being left with the “freedom” to “choose” celibacy just doesn’t seem so generous anymore. (The Church’s decision to repress or ignore this service doesn’t seem so pastoral either.)
I know a lot of what gays and lesbians say and do is offensive to Christians (it’s often offensive to me as a gay Christian), but you saying things like ‘homosexuals haven’t been persecuted like Christians and Jews have been’ just doesn’t hold water. We’ve been persecuted by the narrow-minded much longer than you’ve been around and for the past two hundred years AT LEAST it’s been a lot of Christians doin’ the persecuting! What gays and lesbians are saying about Christianity today IS often offensive, but most of them are reacting to getting verbally abused or beat up by Christians. And then there’re the killings, perpetrated by people like Hitler, by governments today, and by random groups of intolerant people, many of them believers of one religion or another.
On a side note, just because you say you’re ‘condemning the sin and not the sinner’ doesn’t mean what you say after that is totally cool. Believe it or not, it’s offensive to put homosexuality on the same level as murder or even “just” alcoholism.
And in closing, marks to whoever made the comments about masculinity! I grew up in five countries (in North America and East Africa) and then spent some time in central Russia and I cannot help but conclude that most of what any of us think of as “masculine” is a social/cultural construct unique to us or where we’re from. In the USA a lot of my friends tell me they thought I was gay before they found out, but that never happened in Africa ‘cause my mannerisms, clothing style, et cetera, were not out of the ordinary for the cultures I grew up in there.
Oh, and many thanks for the absence of references to the “gay lifestyle.” There is no such thing and the way Protestants refer to it right and life drives me nuts ‘cause the promiscuity and partying they’re talking about (sans the same sex aspect of it) is just as common amongst heterosexuals as it is homosexuals…
Sorry for going on for so long. My apologies if any of this is poorly worded…and the “in closing” was deliberate – I’m an Orthodox of the Byzantine Rite and love the “let us complete our prayer to the Lord” ten/fifteen minutes before the service is actually done…
Paul Cowan
21-03-2009, 01:25 AM
On a side note, just because you say you’re ‘condemning the sin and not the sinner’ doesn’t mean what you say after that is totally cool. Believe it or not, it’s offensive to put homosexuality on the same level as murder or even “just” alcoholism.
Sorry for going on for so long. My apologies if any of this is poorly worded…and the “in closing” was deliberate – I’m an Orthodox of the Byzantine Rite and love the “let us complete our prayer to the Lord” ten/fifteen minutes before the service is actually done…
St. Paul does not seem to agree with you on this point.
Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery,[c] fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders,[d] drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
He even puts being disobedient to parents equal with murder. I don't understand the part about not being totally cool. At what part does anyone talk about sin or this particular sin activity and try to remain cool with it? I am THE worst of sinners. I am constantly aware of my sin. The last thing I want to appear as is cool with my sin or those of others. If the person participating in a sin spoken of here or elsewhere needs to feel "cool" after being pierced to the heart then I think this is where this comes in.
Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
Being gay and being actively gay in the context of Orthodoxy is what this thread is about. It's the active participation in sin of ANY kind we all struggle with. Some of us (me) have heavier crosses than others to bear. No one knows really what anyone elses cross is. Only my spiritual father can discern help for me.
On the last sentence, I have seen when the priest says "Let us complete our prayer to the Lord", it is now the 1/2 point usually or the "backside of the hill" of the service. At least this is what I tell visitors so they can look at their watch and get an idea how much longer they have to stand in place. (Yes, it's evil of me, but they are friends or family I do it to.)
Paul
Fabio Lins
21-03-2009, 05:20 AM
As for the myth of a rite that would bless homossexual partners, it has already been thouroughly debunked:
http://orrologion.blogspot.com/2008/12/failed-attempt-to-rewrite-history-on.html
Michael Astley
21-03-2009, 10:31 AM
Dear in Christ Philip,
Thank you for your candour and for joining in the discussion. It's good to have you here, sharing things from your own experience.
Whether homosexuality is a sin or not is an interesting question. More and more Protestants and Roman Catholics are classifying it with the Old Testament’s prohibitions against shellfish and the like, but the arguments can seem weak at times.
It depends on your perspective. As a liberal Anglcan, I used to find many of these arguments very convincing, and occasionally can see a great deal of value in those that are born of serious investigation and study and are not just posited as a means to justify a foregone conclusion. However, in the vast majority of cases, (and why I no longer find them convincing), what these arguments lack is integrity. By that, I do not mean to imply any dishonesty on the part of those who subscribe to them. I am perhaps using integrity more in its etymological rather than moralistic sense. They lack cohesion with he whole.
One of the things that I have learnt since embracing and being steeped in Orthodoxy is that no one element of the Church's Holy Tradition stands alone. The canons, the Scriptures, the writings of the fathers, the Mysteries, the services of the Church, and the rest are all meaningless when viewed in isolation from the whole. They are a part of the life of the Church - the life of the Body of Christ - and each must be viewed within the context of that life.
It is very easy to put forward a convincing and internally coherent argument from Scripture that sexual activity between two persons of the same sex is not sinful. Indeed, proof-texting is very much part of the culture of certain confessions. It is similarly easy to forumlate an argument from Scripture that says that this is worse and more deserving of punishment than other sins. However, such an interpretation of Scripture remains entirely unconvincing to the Orthodox Christian if it is out of keeping with the rest of the life of the Church. We don't separate out and compartmentalise the different parts of the Church's life. Such an approach is the fruit of the protestant reformation, which is not a part of our experience. To separate one element of our life in from the whole would be like, say, a pagan perfoming the ceremonies of the Divine Liturgy. Everything in that liturgy may be done exactly as it ought to be done, with the utmost care and attention to the rubrics, text, music, and ceremonial. However, removed from the life of the Church - the only context in which it has any meaning - it is of no significance. The Eucharist only makes sense within the life of the Church, and the same is true of any other aspect of the Church's life.
The question, therefore, is one of how the Church sees homosexuality, in her belief and practice.
Then again, no one here mentioned the rite of brotherhood and its potential implications for the issue at hand.
As someone who’s gay I must confess that none of what was written above is terribly convicting or convincing to me. It used to be when I was fresh out of the legalistic Protestant church I grew up in, but the older I get the less sense it makes to me. Especially when the rite of brotherhood (and its fairly universal presence in Western and Eastern Europe) is brought into the picture. When that is taken into consideration my being left with the “freedom” to “choose” celibacy just doesn’t seem so generous anymore. (The Church’s decision to repress or ignore this service doesn’t seem so pastoral either.)
I think the absence of the mention of this service is because we're aware that it doesn't have any direct bearing. I have seen arguments, usually but not always from liberal protestants, where the rite of brotherhood has been used as supporting the claim that there were same-sex unions (as today understood) in the Church's lfie at one point but it has always seemed to be a grasp at straws, and presented as something new that has been discovered that "proves traditional teaching to be wrong". For those of us in the Orthodox Church, this rite is nothing new. It is there, just like the ordination service for deaconnesses, or the deacon fanning the Holy Things during the anaphora, or the Liturgy of St Mark, or any of the other liturgical/sacramental practices that have existed in the past but which have fallen into general disuse. It doesn't imply any cover-up, or suppression, or denial of anything. These things come and go, and often come back again. That's just how Church life is. At the moment, it may be considered not particularly prudent or pastorally helpful to reintroduce into common use the rite of brotherhood where the prevailing understanding of homosexuality in our cultures may cause even those within the Church to misunderstand what is happening.
I also think that it is potentially misleading for people in the 21st century with no direct continuous experience of Orthodox life to look back on an old Orthodox service of which they also have no experience, and which developed in a particular cultural setting in a particular time different from their own, and assume that it meant at that time, in that place, within that religious setting, what it would first appear to mean to somebody in the 21st-century Britain/America. In that respect, it is much like cultural perceptions about masculinity but with the added cloud of centuries having passed.
I know a lot of what gays and lesbians say and do is offensive to Christians (it’s often offensive to me as a gay Christian)...
I think what many people outside the Church say to Christians is offensive. There has been a cultural shift of late and this is just the way things are these days. Many people are hostile to Christianity. Still, many people are sympathetic to Christianity while others are generally indifferent. I imagine that there are gay people who fall into all of those categories.
...but you saying things like ‘homosexuals haven’t been persecuted like Christians and Jews have been’ just doesn’t hold water.
We’ve been persecuted by the narrow-minded much longer than you’ve been around and for the past two hundred years AT LEAST it’s been a lot of Christians doin’ the persecuting!
Sadly, this is true. I don't know why but this particular temptation and succumbing to it has been singled out for stigma in a way that others haven't, and Christians have often played a large role in that. I know that, in what I am about to say, I am speaking in opposition to the Russian Orthodox Church's social charter but I do believe that the criminalisation of homosexual practice, and Christians' support for that, and opposition to its reversal, is wrong. I say this not because I believe that homosexual practice is something to be encouraged but because of my general view that something should not be criminal for the sole reason that it is sinful. Quite aside from any question about the degree to which civil law ought to be centred on Church teaching, I do not believe that it is in keeping with the will of Christ to criminsalise people for not living in accordance with his will. God gives us free will. We can choose to follow Christ and we can choose not to. We can choose to follow Christ and then struggle with the practical outworkings of that decision, and we can fall - all of us do in many aspects of our Christian life.
However, I struggle to see the love of Christ in the idea that says that people ought to be prosecuted for not living in accordance with Church teaching. It seems to me that the job of Christians is to live lives that show to others the love of Christ, and cause them to wish to follow the Church's life because they want to - because they have a stirring in their hearts to also live this life in Christ ands seek their salvation, examining and uprooting from their lives those things that hinder that. It seems to me to be the complete opposite for Christians to support laws that make it illegal for people to do otherwise, and that is, to our shame, what we have done with regard to laws affecting gay people.
(I am not saying that there shouldn't be Christian influence in the laws of the land. Criminalising those things that directly and negatively affect the lives of other people - murder, theft, abortion - and so forth are not simply a case of criminalising people who do not live Christian lives. These things are essential to the maintenance of the common existence of a human society.
As for the claim that Jewish people have been persecuted but homosexual people haven't, I find it unfortunate that people still say these things, and imagine the hurt that it must cause to many people. The persecution, arrest, and mass murder of homosexual people along with Jews and other groups in Nazi Germany is well documented. Also, the barrage of asylum applications that are received from people in various African and Asian countries whose lives are under threat, not because of anything that they have done, but simply because it has been discovered that they are homosexual, should be enough to make us realise that this is a very delicate area, and that in speaking of the doctrinal elements of the temptation and on acts stemming from it, we must always have before our eyes that we are speaking about real people, with real histories, and real pain.
On a side note, just because you say you’re ‘condemning the sin and not the sinner’ doesn’t mean what you say after that is totally cool. Believe it or not, it’s offensive to put homosexuality on the same level as murder or even “just” alcoholism.
I agree with Paul Cowan here, Philip. Christianity may or may not be cool but neither of those is its intention or purpose. In many respects, what Christianity calls us to is very different from what non-Christian society calls us to. Many things that are a normal part of the one seem foreign and alien, and even offensive to the other. I get strange looks going to church on Sundays in a cassock. Similarly, when I worked 40 miles away from home and would say the Office on the train, no matter how discreetly, the occasional eyebrow would be raised. People praying is something that doesn't sit well in British culture, and even where there is an acceptance that it happens, people don't want to be faced with the reality of it. Western societies in general have shifted towards a different understanding of sexuality in general from that of the Church, and this causes a great deal of misunderstanding and offence, (which has not been helped by hostility from both sides). However, if the purpose of the life in Christ is to call us out from where we are into what God would have us be, then it is only natural that the result of this will be that there will be the potential for offence when our way of living implies that the ways to which the world has become accustomed are not necessarily in keeping with those of God. This applies not just to sexuality but to a whole host of other things that affect our lives. That the world and the passions - meant not in its narrow, secular, sense - are fallen is at the core of Christianity.
The news for us is that Christ redeems us, and restores us to the path of theosis, allowing us to step beyond the fallen passions, gradual though it may be, and through grace to be formed into what God would have us be, even if it means the struggle of leavung behind that to which we have been accustomed and which has become a normal part of our way of thinking, living, feeling, and being. We are all faced with this in one form or another, and none of us is singled out in this respect.
Oh, and many thanks for the absence of references to the “gay lifestyle.” There is no such thing and the way Protestants refer to it right and life drives me nuts.
I couldn't agree more.
I first heard the expression "homosexual lifestyle" during an address in a school assembly. It was within the context of a story about somebody who had come to Christ after a life of drug addiction and living a "homosexual lifestyle". I remember giggling at just how silly this sounded. It's like referring to "the young lifestyle" or "the tall lifestyle". I imagine that, just like young people or tall people, gay people have a variety of lifestyles. Some have cereal for breakfast; others have eggs. Some don't even have breakfast at all! Some walk the dog on Sunday mornings while others go to church. Some might even do both - with or without breakfast.
I am not intending to ridicule the serious doctrinal points that people may wish to make but if they are to be taken seriously, they cannot simply generalise an entire category of people as having one lifestyle. Anybody who has ever met another human being knows that this is ridiculous.
Sorry for going on for so long.
Oh dear. If you felt the need to apologise for the length of your post, I suppose I need to do at least a dozen prostrations.
More seriously, I am aware that there is much emotion tied up with this matter and that things said without intention of causing offence and hirt can do so, so I would like to apologise for any hurt I may have caused to anybody of whatever viewpoint in my response.
In Christ,
The unworthy Reader Michael
Father David Moser
21-03-2009, 08:51 PM
Especially when the rite of brotherhood (and its fairly universal presence in Western and Eastern Europe) is brought into the picture. When that is taken into consideration my being left with the “freedom” to “choose” celibacy just doesn’t seem so generous anymore. (The Church’s decision to repress or ignore this service doesn’t seem so pastoral either.)
This "rite of brotherhood" is not and never was some kind of same sex "marriage" ceremony. It does not legitimize or justify homosexual behavior and it only appears to be this because of some very biased "scholarship" (by someone whose name was once on the tip of the tongue, but which I have now forgotten). The Church didn't "repress" or "ignore" this rite - rather she refused to allow it to be highjacked and misused by those outside the Church for a purpose it was never intended to fulfill.
It is indeed "pastoral" for the Church to continue to proclaim the truth and to protect her children from the predation of spiritual wolves who attempt to deceive them and lead them astray to their own spiritual death and destruction.
Homosexual orientation may or may not be a part of the nature of certain persons (and I am in no way convinced that it is but willing to allow that some people may honestly believe it to be so) - but it is, in any case, an orientation that leads one into sin (and if it is "nature" it is not the only fallen "natural" inclination that lead us into sin). We inherit our fallen nature and we are called by God not to live up to our nature, but to transcend it and reclaim our true nature as sons of God.
Fr David Moser
"Whether homosexuality is a sin or not is an interesting question. "
No, it's not. The passages from St. Paul that have been cited above, and the Church's (Catholic or Orthodox) consistent teaching on the subject of homosexual activity are not equivocal. It's simply not intellectually honest to dismiss those teachings as Levitical prohibitions.
You raise important points about the "difference" many Christians seem to assert between homosexual practices on the one hand and sins that are more "normal" and thus meet with more tolerance. Of course, we are called to treat all persons and peoples with charity. But nor can we deny that homosexual activity is sinful on the basis that homosexuals are poorly treated. So are child molesters, and I don't think it's inappropriate to draw such an analogy. Sin is sin, and ought to be condemned as such, even though every one of us has sinned against God and man at some point.
I cannot judge you. I do not know the state of your soul. What I can do is urge you not to fall into the trap of believing that because sin seems to you inescapable, that it is not sin. I struggle with just such sins in my life, but with the grace of God, I have found the strength to fight against them. I fall daily, but with God, we can all rise again.
In all charity,
Evan
PS: I would appreciate it if one of the more knowledgable members of this forum would speak to the problem I'm having with the distinction between being homosexual and engaging in homosexual activity. Would consciously and intentionally entertaining homosexual thoughts, desires, etc. instead of repelling them immediately, be considered homosexual activity, from an Orthodox perspective? Or, assuming that being homosexual is something innate rather than acquired, could a born homosexual entertain such thoughts in good conscience?
Paul Cowan
21-03-2009, 10:21 PM
"
PS: I would appreciate it if one of the more knowledgable members of this forum would speak to the problem I'm having with the distinction between being homosexual and engaging in homosexual activity. Would consciously and intentionally entertaining homosexual thoughts, desires, etc. instead of repelling them immediately, be considered homosexual activity, from an Orthodox perspective? Or, assuming that being homosexual is something innate rather than acquired, could a born homosexual entertain such thoughts in good conscience?
First, no one is born homosexual. It is learned behavior.
Just as you describe sin is sin, so is the answer to this question. What are the levels of sin?
1) introduction of the temptation
2) acceptance of the temptation
3) toying with the temptation
4) acting on the temptation (this is sin)
Until one engages in the tamptation it is just that. Once the "act" happens it has crossed the line of sin. Most folk try not to get past the introduction of the temptation. Especially the ascetics. Have you ever role played in your head? You leave a meeting with your boss and start thinking, "I should have said this or that". You just went to level 3. You are now step from going back and "telling him off". That would be sinful. Or should I say, unloving. Christ never "told anyone off". He loved them.
I don't know Fr. Seraphim Holland (http://www.orthodox.net/articles/homosexuality.html), but this articles of his seems to be relevant here. Here is s snippet
The church does not believe that the act of committing a sin kills a man. The man's disposition before and after is what determines his fate. Does he say "Blessed art Thou O Lord, teach me Thy statutes"? If he does, he will lament any transgression from God's law, especially those that are very obvious and grevious. He will struggle against his passions, and will try to amend himself. When he falls, he will get back up. He will not wallow in his sins, and make excuses.
Someone once told me that "homosexuals are children of God, no more sinful than myself." This is an extremely misleading statement, although elements of it may be true. Whether anyone is more sinful than myself, a poor sinner, I cannot say, but I do know that a homosexual is an obedient child of God only if the above conditions are followed. A homosexual who makes excuses for this sin, and does not struggle against it (notice: I did not say that he must never fall) is estranged from God.
Homosexuality is a mental state
Homosexual activity is acting on that mental state.
You can insert heterosexual here as well.
Lust is lust whether it is with a man or woman. What did Jesus say about 'lusting after her in your heart'? You have committed adultry with her. Same goes for those disposed to homosexuality. Avoiding situations and people that are a temptation helps to give one ground to build upon God to quench this passion. It is possible even for me THE worst of sinners.
Paul
Paul,
Thank you for clarifying these issues to me. I was confused by some of the earlier posts which seemed to assert a thought-act distinction, and I wanted to understand the precise nature of that distinction. Obviously, it doesn't make sense to say that a homosexual can engage in conscious fantasies about committing sin, so long as he doesn't externally "act" on it. That seemed to me potentially inconsistent with the idea that one who even thinks lust in one's heart is guilty of lust. But if "act" is here conceived as being potentially internal or external, all is clear.
I too do not believe homosexuality to encoded from the womb. The idea that it could be is, I think, one borne of the modern desire to excuse sin on a broad scale as being compulsive or innate and therefore not sinful, but "natural." It's not our fault that we do X, Y, or Z-- it's in our genes. Such determinism is not, I think, compatible with Christianity.
In Christ,
Evan
Fr Raphael Vereshack
22-03-2009, 02:26 PM
Evan asked:
PS: I would appreciate it if... the... members of this forum would speak to the problem I'm having with the distinction between being homosexual and engaging in homosexual activity. Would consciously and intentionally entertaining homosexual thoughts, desires, etc. instead of repelling them immediately, be considered homosexual activity, from an Orthodox perspective? Or, assuming that being homosexual is something innate rather than acquired, could a born homosexual entertain such thoughts in good conscience?
I think we have to back up a moment in this discussion. It is assumed nowadays that 'sexual orientation' is an innate part of our nature. Yet according to the Patristic and ascetic understanding of the Church although we are created male & female this is not innately meant in a sensual way.
In other words even though sexuality does have a sensual component this is due to the Fall. Which means that within our lives in Christ the spectrum of what is male & female- something rightly pointed to I think in these discussions- is very proper. However this spectrum does not at all neccesitate a certain sensual expression as is usually argued nowadays.
I realize I haven't directly answered your questions. But I find it very important to back up a bit before getting to these other important points you bring up. Only if we come to grips with the issue of sensuality and how this relates to sexuality- male & female- will any clarity be found.
Which comes to a question I have never heard satisfactorily answered- in marriage what is the Church actually blessing: sensuality? physicality? This question is continually asked on a pastoral level but I can never entirely grasp what is correct except from a negative aspect- 'don't get too sensual'. But this in itself leaves some important un-answered questions.
In Christ- Fr Raphael
Evan asked:
I think we have to back up a moment in this discussion. It is assumed nowadays that 'sexual orientation' is an innate part of our nature. Yet according to the Patristic and ascetic understanding of the Church although we are created male & female this is not innately meant in a sensual way.
In other words even though sexuality does have a sensual component this is due to the Fall. Which means that within our lives in Christ the spectrum of what is male & female- something rightly pointed to I think in these discussions- is very proper. However this spectrum does not at all neccesitate a certain sensual expression as is usually argued nowadays.
I realize I haven't directly answered your questions. But I find it very important to back up a bit before getting to these other important points you bring up. Only if we come to grips with the issue of sensuality and how this relates to sexuality- male & female- will any clarity be found.
Which comes to a question I have never heard satisfactorily answered- in marriage what is the Church actually blessing: sensuality? physicality? This question is continually asked on a pastoral level but I can never entirely grasp what is correct except from a negative aspect- 'don't get too sensual'. But this in itself leaves some important un-answered questions.
In Christ- Fr Raphael
Father, bless:
I should have been more careful with my language. As I stated in my response to Paul, I do not believe homosexuality to be innate-- rather, I was positing the assumption in search of clarity on the thought-act distinction issue. Because I wasn't sure as to how we were using the word "act" in this context, I was troubled by the idea that merely being homosexual could be unproblematic, but engaging in homosexuality is obviously sinful. Now, Paul has clarified this for me: Consciously engaging homosexual thoughts and desires are homosexual "acts."
Certainly, if homosexuality is innate, and those born homosexual can only express their sexuality with members of the same sex, it doesn't make sense to condemn it-- it is not right or wrong, but simply is. And yet, St. Paul quite plainly tells us that it is unacceptable. Faced with such a contradiction, I agree that it does not make sense to say that homosexuals can be so born.
Michael Astley
22-03-2009, 10:53 PM
I too do not believe homosexuality to encoded from the womb. The idea that it could be is, I think, one borne of the modern desire to excuse sin on a broad scale as being compulsive or innate and therefore not sinful, but "natural." It's not our fault that we do X, Y, or Z-- it's in our genes. Such determinism is not, I think, compatible with Christianity.
In Christ,
Evan
Dear Evan,
Did you see my earlier post about particular temptations being innate not implying that acting on them is therefore excusable? I am not saying that homosexuality is or is not innate because I do not know but I'm making the broader point that to deny the possibility of such things being innate is to say something about the earlier stages of human life that I do not think is compatible with Christianity. As I mentioned in my earlier post, Christianity holds that the human condition is fallen. If it is not possible for infanthood/the development of the human being in the womb to be subject to this fallenness, then what exactly are we saying about that stage of human development? Is it not truly part of human life? The doctrinal, (not to menton the practical), repercussions of this line of thought are unthinkable as far as I can tell.
Yes, I agree that there is a trend in secular society and liberal forms of Christianity to suggest that if something is innate, then it is God-intended/natural and, necessarily, the person is not at fault for acting in accordance with that. However, it seems to me that it is possible to disagree with this, (as indeed I do), without going to the opposite extreme of denying the possibility that such things are innate.
It is possible to have an innate feature and still struggle against it and overcome it. For example, it is possible for a child to be born with a predisposition to depression due to chemical imbalances in the mother during pregnancy. That does not mean that depression is what God wills for his creature and it does not of necessity mean that the child will grow up to live a life of depression. If the signs of depression arise, it does not mean that, through prayer, through anointing, and through the correct treatment, the person cannot fight against it instead of giving in to it. It seems to me that the one does not necessarily lead to the other and I think that prudence requires that we be more tempered in our response to secularism's insistence that it does, lest we end up reacting against the world instead of simply proclaiming the Faith.
In Christ,
the unworthy Reader Michael
"It is possible to have an innate feature and still struggle against it and overcome it. For example, it is possible for a child to be born with a predisposition to depression due to chemical imbalances in the mother during pregnancy. That does not mean that depression is what God wills for his creature and it does not of necessity mean that the child will grow up to live a life of depression. If the signs of depression arise, it does not mean that, through prayer, through anointing, and through the correct treatment, the person cannot fight against it instead of giving in to it. It seems to me that the one does not necessarily lead to the other and I think that prudence requires that we be more tempered in our response to secularism's insistence that it does, lest we end up reacting against the world instead of simply proclaiming the Faith."
I would agree with all of this. Certainly, I don't think it's appropriate to deny that one can have innate dispositions towards certain kinds of behavior as a consequence of genetic preconditions.
However, I do think there's a difference between asserting that one can innate disposition towards alcoholism, or depression, or homosexuality on the one hand; and that one can be a "born alcoholic," or be "born depressed" or "born gay." The latter is the deterministic thinking I sought to criticize. I can't see how it is compatible with Christianity, or, for that matter, any morally principled approach to the world (not that Christianity is just an intellectual construct, of course).
The initial question as stated was whether God fashions individuals homosexual in the womb. I interpreted this to mean, inescapably homosexual, such that they cannot fight against it. Would you agree that this is not consonant with Christian doctrine?
Fr Raphael Vereshack
22-03-2009, 11:33 PM
By 'innate' I do not mean a disposition we are born with. As is increasingly being commented on in this discussion we are after all born in sin; ie we have the disposition to sin from birth which we then act upon.
Rather by 'innate' I mean that Patristic/ascetic understanding of human nature as God intends this. By definition then this is a nature without the sinful passions; and purified of the sensual deformation of our God created nature.
Another way of putting this then as a very serious question is: as innate to 'same sex attraction'- are we always referring to something sensual? If so- and it seems it most always is meant in this way- then it is a serious problem by any Church understanding.
Of course though just as problematic would be 'other sex attraction' based on sensuality. This is the basis of the question in my last post which I would like clarified one day if possible, for pastoral reasons.
I'm having trouble answering this I think because friendships nowadays are often very amorphous. In previous times what I was part of through my youth was friendships which mostly were male to male & female to female. Although it must have occurred, it was so rare that any of this was 'same sex attraction that I don't think I really heard of this until I was an adult.
On the other hand the female to male relationship was seen and lived out in quite a different way. There was a bond established in such relationships- obviously if it led to marriage. But it was very different from who your 'best friend' was.
That such 'best friend' relationships may have had something of a social norm to it could be so. But I do think if anything was 'innate', a close friendship without sensual overtones, then this was it.
In Christ- Fr Raphael
By 'innate' I do not mean a disposition we are born with. As is increasingly being commented on in this discussion we are after all born in sin; ie we have the disposition to sin from birth which we then act upon.
Rather by 'innate' I mean that Patristic/ascetic understanding of human nature as God intends this. By definition then this is a nature without the sinful passions; and purified of the sensual deformation of our God created nature.
Another way of putting this then as a very serious question is: as innate to 'same sex attraction'- are we always referring to something sensual? If so- and it seems it most always is meant in this way- then it is a serious problem by any Church understanding.
Of course though just as problematic would be 'other sex attraction' based on sensuality. This is the basis of the question in my last post which I would like clarified one day if possible, for pastoral reasons.
I'm having trouble answering this I think because friendships nowadays are often very amorphous. In previous times what I was part of through my youth was friendships which mostly were male to male & female to female. Although it must have occurred, it was so rare that any of this was 'same sex attraction that I don't think I really heard of this until I was an adult.
On the other hand the female to male relationship was seen and lived out in quite a different way. There was a bond established in such relationships- obviously if it led to marriage. But it was very different from who your 'best friend' was.
That such 'best friend' relationships may have had something of a social norm to it could be so. But I do think if anything was 'innate', a close friendship without sensual overtones, then this was it.
In Christ- Fr Raphael
Father, bless:
If I understand you correctly, it would be impossible, under the Patristic understanding, for "same sex attraction" (colloquially understood, I think that there is always a sensual aspect to this-- I've never heard it used to refer to a qualified preference for the friendship, even close friendship, of members of one sex or the other) to be "innate." Otherwise, we would be sensually deformed in the very form that God intended for us to assume. Is this accurate?
In Christ,
Evan
Kornelius
23-03-2009, 03:28 AM
To summarize what I have explained previously in post # 16 of this thread, I would simply USE two words that best describe the very essence of homosexuality: ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT. Nothing more, nothing less. Certainly this arrested development is further enhanced by the media which brings forth more confusion and disinformation.
Most of us Christians are constantly and unsuspectingly conditioned and brainwashed by this illuminati propaganda. The latter's institutions, in particular the Tavistock Research Institute, has been single-handedly responsible for destroying ancient Christian values from our western society.
Homosexuality among other things is presented as something normal, innate, while the opposite is true.
It is refreshing, however, to see that even homosexual people are aware of their sad reality of arrested development. Certainly, your mainstream media won't bring these stories to you, but I will so that you could see the truth about homosexuality from a homosexual.
His name is Giuseppe Povia, and he is a famous Italian singer, who expressed his real life story and feelings in the lyrics of a song he sang at the most prestigious song festival in Italy, the San Remo Festival. In 2006 he was the winner of this festival.
The song is titled "Luca era Gay" (Luke was Gay) and won second place.This is an excerpt from the article:
"On February 17th., Povia sang his song on the first evening of the Festival. "Luca Era Gay" recounts the transformation of a man named Luca from the gay lifestyle. Without the help of psychologists and psychiatrists, he digs deep within himself to understand the sources of his homosexual attractions. An emotionally disconnected, detached father and a smothering mother, he says, created confusion about his sexual identity: "I looked for men who would be my father, I went with men not to betray my mother." The song also alludes to a superficiality in homosexual relationships. He says, "between love and deceit, often we betrayed each other." The song ends with this verse: "This is my story, only my story. No disease. No healing. Dear dad, I forgive you even if you didn't come back. Mum, I often think of you, I love you and sometimes I still bear your reflection, but now I am a father and I am in love with the only woman I have ever loved." The music, a soft rap with dramatic tunes, carries a direct and honest text while never judging homosexually oriented people for their own personal lifestyle choices."
You'll find the whole article in the link below, and you could also listen to the song. It's interesting to see the reaction of the establishment which tried to stop him from singing the song but did not succeed, and also the incredible reaction of the audience.
http://www.narth.com/docs/popmusic.html
His name is Giuseppe Povia, and he is a famous Italian singer, who expressed his real life story and feelings in the lyrics of a song he sang at the most prestigious song festival in Italy, the San Remo Festival. In 2006 he was the winner of this festival.
The song is titled "Luca era Gay" (Luke was Gay) and won second place.This is an excerpt from the article:
That song is amazing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31zx9AApn3c&feature=related
It is amazing how in Italian you can say story in songs. The lyrics are beautiful and such an interesting story. Thank you Kornelius for this.
Paul Cowan
23-03-2009, 06:23 AM
To summarize what I have explained previously in post # 16 of this thread, I would simply USE two words that best describe the very essence of homosexuality: ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT. Nothing more, nothing less. Certainly this arrested development is further enhanced by the media which brings forth more confusion and disinformation.
If I can build on this Kornelius...It is not just homosexuals this phrase belongs to; it is all addicts of all sorts. When a person is growing into their addiction, there is an unknown no-turning back point. For most addicts, this is at a young age when we are all so impressionable. I dare say every human being is a addict of some sort to something. (sex, food, alcohol, people, gambling)
I work with addicts often for the particular 12 step program I deal with; these addicts "arrested" their development at a very early teen or preteen years. They revert to childish behaviours, they are afraid of authority figures, they lie to cover up things dont' need to be lied about (and many others). The traits for all addicts are the same. I agree with you one noticeable result is an arrested development in their personality along socially acceptable behaviours and their ability to deal with this life.
Paul
Which comes to a question I have never heard satisfactorily answered- in marriage what is the Church actually blessing: sensuality? physicality? This question is continually asked on a pastoral level but I can never entirely grasp what is correct except from a negative aspect- 'don't get too sensual'. But this in itself leaves some important un-answered questions.
In Christ- Fr Raphael
Dear Fr Raphael,
I haven't found good answers to these questions either. From my own struggles about this, I've come to see the sensual aspect of marriage, to be similar to whatever we do to food, to make it extra delicious, to the tongue and to the eyes, and to the nose. It serves no good purpose except to encourage gluttony. It shuts off our natural ability to recognize that we are full, and we eat more than we should.
However, it isn't a bad thing to cook tasty food, or to enjoy tasty food. Is it possible to remember that food is primarily for the nourishment of the body, and does not have to delight our senses? I know that's hard for my kids all the time. For me, I have my ups and downs, I can do without, but then I end up gorging too.
It also seems to me, the senses are never satisfied. They can easily lead to all kinds of addictions. They always want more and more and more, and they get bored with the same old thing, and look for newer, more exciting things. That's what makes me look at yet another cook book, although I already own more than a dozen.
I don't think marriage is a safe place for physical passions to be satisfied. I think it only masks the problems. It is something deeper that satisfies - something that is more real - the relationship between the spouses. If there is no growth in that relationship, then... I don't know if there will ever be any kind of satisfaction, however exciting their marriage is.
On the flip side... there is no need to satisfy the senses, in order to have that kind of deep, intimate, satisfying relationship. Whatever this relationship is, has no real connection with the senses. So, it is possible to have this kind of relationship with other men or with other women, or with a whole lot of others, because it has nothing to do with sexuality.
Please forgive me. I have no idea what I'm saying. Just that, I can't seem to accept that there isn't anything deeper, something that goes far beyond our physical boundaries and attributes. Otherwise, what hope is there for those whose physical attributes/situations cut them off from physical closeness to other people?
I don't know. Perhaps the answer is that satisfying the senses shouldn't become a goal to achieve or work towards. If the goal is building a good, deep, godly relationship, then, whatever helps you get there is good, and whatever gets in the way should be gotten rid of.
Now I'm confused. What should our goal be in any relationship?
In Christ,
Mary.
What should our goal be in any relationship?
In Christ,
Mary.
Show the love and light of Christ. Help each other achieve salvation and go to Heaven. This is what I know in theory.
Michael Astley
23-03-2009, 11:48 AM
Dear Evan and Father Raphael,
Thank you for your clarifying posts, which have helped me to understand your meaning more clearly. Please forgive any frustration I may have caused through misunderstanding.
In Christ,
Michael
Fr Raphael Vereshack
23-03-2009, 12:49 PM
Father, bless:
If I understand you correctly, it would be impossible, under the Patristic understanding, for "same sex attraction" (colloquially understood, I think that there is always a sensual aspect to this-- I've never heard it used to refer to a qualified preference for the friendship, even close friendship, of members of one sex or the other) to be "innate." Otherwise, we would be sensually deformed in the very form that God intended for us to assume. Is this accurate?
In Christ,
Evan
Yes, I think so- this is my sense of the Patristic and ascetic understanding.
In Christ- Fr Raphael
Fr Raphael Vereshack
23-03-2009, 01:07 PM
Dear Mary,
Thank you for this post. I think it is very helpful.
You wrote:
However, it isn't a bad thing to cook tasty food, or to enjoy tasty food. Is it possible to remember that food is primarily for the nourishment of the body, and does not have to delight our senses? I know that's hard for my kids all the time. For me, I have my ups and downs, I can do without, but then I end up gorging too.
Maybe it is here that we can see what the proper attitude towards the physical relationship should be.
There is something in sensuality which is selfish and therefore destructive to a relationship. Somewhat like food, the sensual or self-pleasing aspect is always very close to what is physical. Thus the real danger if sensuality is pursued for itself.
But if instead we treat physicality as a means of caring for others- similar to how we take care to prepare food for others- then it has an aspect to it which tempers what can be entirely selfish.
Just some initial thoughts.
In Christ- Fr Raphael
Alice
23-03-2009, 02:57 PM
Re: 'Luca era Gay'...
Wow, amazing song (and message)!
Thanks Kornelius.
Re: 'Luca era Gay'...
Wow, amazing song (and message)!
Thanks Kornelius.
Yes it is Alice you are right. Thank you again Kornelius. Here is also a link (http://vitavagabonda.blogspot.com/2009/02/luca-era-gay-luca-once-was-gay-povia.html) for the lyrics of the song in English.
Jan Sunqvist
15-08-2010, 05:13 PM
Wow. I found reading this thread quite disheartening. Many of the people who generally post threads that I find quite enlightening, show with this topic how little understanding there is about certain matters. I certainly don't know the answers, but I can tell with this topic quite easily when someone is talking from a place of deeper insight and compassion or when they are just philosophising to fit things with the presupposed dogma. The latter is very dangerous in my opinion. Particularly from clergy. I think it is also missing the mark! Because even if what one is saying is generally correct, the tone and subtle implications show quite clearly lack of understanding and compassion and are more than enough to put a struggling person off and give them a sense that they can never really be helped so they often give up on religion altogether. In other denominations this happens all the time. It is quite horrible actually.
What does it exactly mean to be 'born gay'? When is it predetermined? At conception? Fetal development? early childhood? At this point there is zero evidence of a gay gene, but there is strong evidence that factors like hormones in the womb and relationship between parents during early development (ie. distant father etc.) predisposes one to developing homosexual attraction during puberty. In any case, the gay person is the last one responsible for the fact that they are attracted to the same sex. As far as they are concerned, it has been predetermined for them. Unless one is bisexual or only mildly attracted to the same sex, one has no choice to which sex they are attracted.
I am tempted to say that conversion of any kind does not work, but who knows maybe it is possible. But the point is, at this time, there is zero success with converting anyone who is predominantly homosexual. Only horror stories of ignoramuses constructing 'therapies' to match the dogmatic understanding they are unwilling to re-examine. Besides, even spiritually, is it not a bit suspect to ask God to change one's lust for members of the same sex to lust for members of the opposite sex, when Christ clearly says that there are those who are born eunuchs and those who may choose to live celibate lives for the sake of Kingdom of God?
So for a gay person there are two options. They have the option of making peace with it, trying to live their life as best as they can, or aim for complete celibacy. For a 'secular' person, it's clear which one they will opt for, and frankly I don't understand how anyone can expect them to do otherwise. For the 'religious', 'spiritual' or 'believing' there is the option of struggling to attain celibacy. It cannot be anything but voluntary. That's clear as day. Otherwise it is harmful.
Below is a paragraph pasted from orthodoxphotos.com website. This paragraph puts certain inner spiritual principles out in the open in a very clear way.
""Celibacy caused by the desire for moral perfection is like a ladder by which one ascends to the highest rank. The sublimation of sexual energy which is inevitably accumulated in the body, although it is not at all an easy thing to do, can only be achieved through this way leading directly upwards. Then a real "transfiguration of Eros" takes place, when the cross of opposing sexual desires becomes a struggle with the "old person" in oneself. All the stress here is put into a free direction of one’s will towards Heaven, which attracts God's spiritual energy to the person. ""
I don't know who wrote this, but the origin of this statement shows a deeper understanding.
So here are my questions. To me, very important ones.
Where are the testimonies of those living in the world struggling toward celibacy? It is one thing if one tries to cut off temptation by moving to a monastery or as some religious fundamentalists have done, force all women to cover themselves up completely, leaving only eyes revealed... But what for those living in the contemporary world?
Not looking with lust is a skill that is becoming increasingly crucial. And it is rarely mentioned in practice. Someone earlier in the thread implied that acceptance and toying with the temptation is not fully sin yet. To me, again, that is dogma over insight. Engaging and toying with temptation of lust, actually 'expends' sexual energy and the physical response is production of fluids from certain glands... One can expend all of one's sexual energy without engaging in the sexual act at all. Biologically speaking, the result is actually far worse than having had sexual relations. I think I will stop there... It is very dangerous for the well being of the person, to impose celibacy without giving clear guidance on all that is necessary for the 'sublimation' mentioned above. It seems clear why the Catholic Church initially instituted celibacy for the priests. But they live in the world and without proper guidance - danger.
I digress. Back to my question. If the world is changing so fast where now sexual temptation lurks non stop for most of us, in the way people dress, talk, media, internet etc, does not our need for help seem even more urgent? I can have fine intentions not to engage with temptation, but without control of my attention, and the knowledge of how and where to direct it, it fails, because temptation works at a pretty high speed... I think a contemporary spiritual guide needs to be very knowledgeable to help people in contemporary circumstances.
At my best moments, I can allow myself to really see that I don't know the answers.
Fr. Gregory (Hallam)
15-08-2010, 06:29 PM
Dear Jan
I honestly believe (and it is a reflection on my pastoral experience as a priest, confessor and spiritual father) that the practical guidance one offers is exactly the same whatever a person's sexual orientation. Heterosexual and homosexual lust is not distinguishable at the psychosomatic level.
BTW, "lust" is not the same as sexual excitation. This is the error the west fell into after Augustine in which it was generally thought that only sex without excitation (invariably thought to be the same as lust) was without taint of sin. Attraction, desire, coitus and orgasm without excitation; what a ridiculous idea! No, God created sexual excitation as a good thing. Even when anything beyond attraction is inappropriate (or just plain sinful; ie lust) attraction remains without sin IF IT STOPS AT ATTRACTION. Also, I do not know anybody (including myself) who can live without experiencing reflexive attraction. God made people beautiful for a reason. Lust, then is the desire trajectory beyond attraction to orgasm with or without coitus.
Before we move on to ascesis and continence; let me say something about masturbation. Apparently it is a behaviour (sinful or not .... more about that in a minute) in which 92% of all men at some time or other in their lives have engaged in ... and by that I mean some degree of frequency. The percentage is somewhat lower for women but not significantly lower (I cannot reference that right now).
It is generally recognised that with pubescent individuals masturbation is an inevitable and even desirable exploration of feelings not properly understood in someone who is definitely not yet ready for sex. As such, it cannot be lust per se for it lacks self knowledge, physical / emotional maturity and an object of desire. When this converts to "lust" is a moot point but I suppose it goes with psycho-sexual maturity which definitely varies for each individual. Theoretically lust can kick in at that point and masturbation could be flagged as an issue but without prejudging the outcome.
Confessors have to be particularly careful here, particularly and obviously with the young. Even with adults, however, it is better to listen rather than open things up by enquiry ... indeed confessors are forbidden from such intrusion as it is invariably harmful to both the confessor and penitent.
Masturbation is a difficult area anyway. Advice given to confessors of married soldiers away from their wives on long periods of active service for example would be to be lenient with such activity if the alternative was unfaithfulness. The ability to be continent depends on many, many factors including libido (varies from person to person), personality factors, spiritual maturity, ascetical practice etc. etc. A wise confessor will adapt his counsel to the circumstances of each case. Moving on from autoeroticism ...
Lust in relation to one's wife or husband simply does not arise as I have already indicated PROVIDED that the sexual relationship is mutually self giving and respectful. A marriage without sexual fulfilment UNLESS BOTH partners have agreed to refrain (for a time usually or more permanently in the case of extenuating and special circumstances) is dysfunctional. No party has a RIGHT to expect sex from the other but if the couple are not disposed to resolve their sexual differences and incompatibilities; then this is a very serious matter, spiritually as well as in every other way.
Lust in a person not married is a very, very difficult passion to overcome (for gay and straight people alike ... as I have said, there is no difference). Cultures that have recognised this have often insisted on modest dress for BOTH men and women alike. In Islam for example (and in antiquity this applied to Christianity and pre-Christian religions and cultures alike) not only do women cover their heads in public but men also are expected to keep leggings below the knee. Let's remember that lust is not the province of men alone!
Today in the west, the EXPECTATION of modest attire is considered strange and limiting (especially for women) UNLESS the western "liberal" conscience gets all exercised about Islam where double standards are frequently applied. Also in the west, "sex sells." The idealisation and sexualisation of the human form in the image of the adman is a very pervasive phenomenon as we know. Where would Calvin Klein and Abercrombie and Fitch be without those hunks in skimpies? Where would Vogue be without the Goddess-of-the-impossibly-long-legs. These images are designed at the biological level to make us "stop and want." So the dopamine reward system in the brain connects (for example) Levis and arousal. This is nothing less than the fetish-isation of the product, (for women read "shoes" perhaps?)
Resisting this is VERY difficult ... but for a Christian it is entirely necessary. If arousal gets connected to so many desirable objects then the pornographic objectification of persons is the inevitable result. The arousing image for the lonely and sexually frustrated might prompt us to have compassion but the wholesale calculating exploitation of our sexuality by commerce should make us angry and determined to do something about that (provided we can avoid the propaganda "own goal" of being characterised as Christian prudes with hangups about sex!).
What can we do at a personal, ascetical level about public displays of the erotic, unless and until society changes? The traditional guidance does not change and is the only answer. Knowing one's weakness, one averts one's gaze. Lust usually enters through the eyes although one has to be careful about the other senses as well. This cannot be achieved without prayer, faith, the sacraments and the support of one's brothers and sisters and spiritual fathers and mothers in the church. With that great resource however much can be achieved and victories won.
Let me the clear though. In the marriage bed the exact opposite applies. Go for it!
Jan Sunqvist
15-08-2010, 07:09 PM
Dear Fr. Gregory,
thank you for the reply. With respect, I think we are still dancing around the crucial.
In my experience, avoidance (diverting the gaze, or modest clothing etc) is a very good beginning. For weak people like myself its necessary. And yet I fail time and time again... But at the same time, avoidance seems utterly beside the true point, the aim - Love.
There is only so much we can avoid. I think we are called towards a deeper spiritual and more wholesome relationship with each other. I may not be able to avoid dealing intimately with someone I am attracted to. In my limited and possibly incorrectly interpreted experience, the issue has to do with how the sexual energy affects my heart. Yes, the attraction is there, and as you pointed out it's experienced by almost everyone. And I agree with you, I don't think attraction is sinful. But what happens, often almost instantaneously, with the energy of this attraction? Where does it flow, so to speak? How does the attraction affect me overall? How does it affect my state of awareness? How does it affect my heart? On a rare occasion it is possible to experience attraction in a simple way without it leading to a desire. To experience physical beauty of another person and not want to 'have' it and 'possess' it. But this happened only as a gift.
There is something about the distinction between created beauty or love of the created and the Uncreated, which in best states seems to mean so much. And yet ordinarily, I am left without the spiritual tools, or often in the moment I refuse the tools accessible to me, like prayer, because I am swayed, or allow myself to be swayed. Do you see what I am trying to get at? One way is not to look, not to play with temptation. But what about seeing the being of the person one is attracted to? Is it possible to truly love at that moment? What is really necessary for that natural energy of attraction to not flow towards reinforcing our fallen nature and desire, but towards true Love?
The paragraph I pasted in the previous post still seems like the most illuminating words on sexuality I came across.
I believe the two commandments Christ said all laws stem from, are a possibility at each and every moment of our life. The question remaining is - how?
Fr. Gregory (Hallam)
15-08-2010, 08:30 PM
I am not sure about the alleged connection between physical beauty and love. There CAN a connection if one finds a way of transforming the attraction as you have described but it is not a necessary or universally descriptive or sufficient account of our ability to love. What about someone who is physically repulsive? How do we love them .... when the sexual energy is negative? No. Love is about the WILL .... not simply the stirring of affection.
The physical aspect of attraction has to do with reproductive fitness. Men consider fulsome hips to be sexy NOT because of the aesthetic per se but because these indicate a woman who will have less difficulty in childbirth. Don't forget the animal aspect of our nature.
Talk of "love" in this context has the tendency to become unreal and over-romanticised ..... as in the troubador poetry of the Middle Ages. Unattainable unrequited love. Sexual love is more messy than than that and agape is something else entirely UNLESS sexual love is subsumed within that. Therein lies the possibility of transformation. But love, for all that, is wider than that and depends on the WILL.
Jan Sunqvist
15-08-2010, 08:45 PM
Dear Fr. Gregory,
I agree with your last post fully.
Love does depend on Will, not on physical beauty.
But behind physical beauty there is spiritual beauty. Behind physical 'non-beauty' there is also spiritual beauty. The question I am trying to ask is how does one truly Love? In each moment. In this case, how does one Love by Will, in the moment our animal nature is inclined to react? Does the animal nature have to prevent one from being able see the spiritual nature of the other person and to Love unconditionally at that moment? You say 'if one finds a way of transforming'. Isn't that the aim all the time in a way? Every situation, every circumstance, every energy to be transformed, with God's help? So what is necessary on my part?
Fr. Gregory (Hallam)
15-08-2010, 09:00 PM
Self-transcendence. That's how. Ascetical training AND faith leads to be the ability to respond from the heart in a will undisturbed by disordered passion.
Jan Sunqvist
15-08-2010, 09:18 PM
'Ascetical training AND faith leads to be the ability to respond from the heart in a will undisturbed by disordered passion'
I think that is very well put, thank you. If only it was as clear practically in each situation...
David Hawthorne
15-08-2010, 09:30 PM
I picked other: To the first question, No, God does not create anyone to be involved in a particular sinful behavior. To the second, Maybe, because of the Fall we may be born pre-disposed to certain passions or we may come into them through our experiences.
Fr. Gregory (Hallam)
15-08-2010, 09:31 PM
Dear Jan
If we do the background work then the rest takes care of itself.
Jason H.
15-08-2010, 09:39 PM
As a gay person, it has been my belief that I was born gay.
Fr. Gregory (Hallam)
15-08-2010, 10:12 PM
Dear Jason
For many in terms of their personal experience this makes sense. There is stupid idea around that gay people are fundamentally straights who have just gone astray somehow. For anyone who has never ever experienced anything except same sex desire the testimony is that this is definitely something that has not been chosen ... anymore than a straight person has "chosen" to be straight.
Theophrastus
15-08-2010, 10:25 PM
As a gay person, it has been my belief that I was born gay.
Yes, but were you conceived gay?
Jason H.
15-08-2010, 10:29 PM
Dear Fr. Gregory,
Father, bless!
For some people who have made the argument that it is "environmental factors" they have to take into consideration that almost every gay person, from my generation and under were born and raised in straight households. I was raised by a mother and a father. I was raised in a conservative household. I never knew any gay person growing up; though growing up I had an attraction to them. And NO I was never sexually abused as a child by anyone as some argue that it stems from at some point being abused in our childhood. I had a typical if not overbearing emphasis on "family values" and "traditional family."
For me, being gay is just an anomaly in my genetic make-up, a mutation of my genes, or a cross wire in my brain.
The argument that God doesn't "make" gay people is just irrational. There's no proof to support it. And quoting Leviticus is not substantial argument that God would never make gay people. For if someone to make that argument we would then have to question why would God create shellfish or animals with cloved hooves if they are an abomination to eat.
Jason H.
15-08-2010, 10:30 PM
Yes, but were you conceived gay?
I don't know, I guess I'd have to go ask either my father's sperm or my mother's egg.
John Konstantin
15-08-2010, 10:48 PM
An interesting thread. I have nothing to add on whatever had been said previously other than pointing out that once we go down the slippery slope of genetic pre-dispositions we run the risk of Determinism and thence unto Predestination. Scary.
Fr. Gregory (Hallam)
15-08-2010, 11:11 PM
That's not true John. Genes don't function like that. Even if there was a "gay gene" (or straight gene come to that) .... (the evidence for that is weak .... the smart money is on hormonal levels in the womb) such a gene would simply code for an aspect of human identity and behaviour. Everyone is free to choose how to live.
Kosta
15-08-2010, 11:12 PM
I have heard many gay men say they knew they were gay from an early age, like at 5 years old. I dont know if there just saying this, but in of itself it seems quite strange. Its simply something children dont think about. In a secular-medical point of view male homosexuality is a complex issue, of course the Church knows that our gnomic will has an inclination towards sin regardless. Whether it is a genetic disposition or not, we all inherit certain passions that we are inclined to satisfy, these we must struggle with and tame
Now lesbian women are simply all over the map, i think most of them are just psychotic in some way, whether through hormonal imbalances or plain old fashion perversion. The majority of lesbian women i know were actually married for years with offspring. Some have claimed they were always lesbians till you talk to their ex-husbands. From early times men themselves were polygamists, meaning lesbian acts were/are encouraged by the husbands themselves. I truly believe while a case can be made that male homosexuality is something you can be born as, i dont see this being the case with lesbianism.
John Konstantin
15-08-2010, 11:34 PM
That's not true John. Genes don't function like that. Even if there was a "gay gene" (or straight gene come to that) .... (the evidence for that is weak .... the smart money is on hormonal levels in the womb) such a gene would simply code for an aspect of human identity and behaviour. Everyone is free to choose how to live.
Agreed. However, it is far easier for me to 'not' to jump in to bed with a man because of the absence of said gene (if it were to exist) than if I had had inherited it. Compared with someone who has inherited this gene which of us is more likely to be drawn into homosexuality? So in what way is it "not true"? Also, how on earth does hormone levels make any difference to either DNA make up or subsequent behaviour? If one concedes any pre-dispositions one has to accept, not robotic Determinism, but strong accumlative forces that could predict future behaviour. Of course that doesn't mitigate against free will. People have been shown to over come any form of behaviour with sufficient incentive or 'grace' if you are a Christian. As is constantly repeated above it is no different for the heterosexual. Not true. The heterosexuals primary orientation is not considered sinful and it has a grace filled blessing within the sacrament of marriage. No such outlet is permissable for the homosexual and saying we are all the same with the ability to sin and resist sin is not quite seeing the situation for homosexuals.
Fr. Gregory (Hallam)
16-08-2010, 01:46 AM
I am not being rude John but it is difficult understanding your point amongst all the qualifying clauses in these sentences. You seem to be refuting more than I am claiming. I am simply saying that genes strongly influence our disposition to certain behaviours but they don't DETERMINE them. The scientific consensus is that genes AND environment (and this includes "in utero") are the raw materials for our behaviour. But, as you have agreed, we CHOOSE to behave in certain ways.
Your grasp of the science to be a bit uncertain to say the least. Of course hormones don't affect DNA ... I did not say that nor has anyone ever claimed that ... but hormones do contribute to a disposition to certain behaviours; indeed they play a major role in sexual differentiation between male and female identity after conception. Read this report from a study carried by the journal Nature.
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20000329/pointing-finger-androgen-cause-homosexuality
Also, this year, a study by Garcia-Falgueras, Alicia, & Swaab, (Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation, in Endocrine Development, vol. 17, pp. 22–35 (2010) (ISSN 1421-7082) (authors are of Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience) has again pointed to excess tesosterone levels in the womb (sometimes occasioned by stress) in relation to developing brain structure and sexual orientation / identity. These fetal and neonatal peaks of testosterone, together with the functional steroid receptor activity, are thought to fix the development of structures and circuits in the brain for the rest of a boy's life (producing 'programming' or 'organizing' effects). Later, the rising hormonal levels that occur during puberty 'activate' circuits and behavioral patterns that were built during development, in a masculinized and de-feminized direction for male brains or in a feminized and de-masculinized direction for female brains. Disturbances in hormonal balance in utero sets the configuration for behavioural tendencies that kick in at puberty.
Dear Kosta
You said:- "I have heard many gay men say they knew they were gay from an early age, like at 5 years old. I don't know if there just saying this, but in of itself it seems quite strange. Its simply something children dont think about."
Nobody is claiming that children "think about being gay or straight" .... but children do have certain experiences or relationship preferences that indicate later sexual development. It is very easy to stereotype these but classically observed behaviour amongst boys would include certain interests that would be considered "sissy" by other juvenile males. John Bannerman (gay) has related how he always liked playing with dolls when he was a child.
See here ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/7521776.stm
There are many other examples of children adopting behaviours that will make more sense to them later on. Precisely because (until recently) these were considered undesirable by parents and friends, they tend to be remembered more I think. In any case I think it is quite plausible that discovering that one is gay at or after puberty is a revelation to such men in terms of their childhood experience.
I am not making any moral or spiritual judgements here. I am sticking to the science as a descriptive account.
Jason H.
16-08-2010, 01:51 AM
The heterosexuals primary orientation is not considered sinful and it has a grace filled blessing within the sacrament of marriage. .
As long as you do not commit fornication, adultery, masturbation, etc... Being "heterosexual" does not guarantee you more grace than one who is a homosexual.
Angelos
16-08-2010, 02:43 AM
We need to distinguish between urges and actions. Homosexual urges might be genetic or psychological. Homosexual actions are willful behavior; a sinful choice.
Are Homosexual actions worse than fornication or adultery? I don't think so.
What's really bad about open homosexuals these days though is that they promote their lifestyle; they celebrate their sin, thus causing others to sin too. Not only they don't repent, but they bully and intimidate anyone who openly asserts that homosexual sex is a sin. The Gay lobby has declared open war on Family (i.e., Christian) values...and that is a far greater sin than an individual act.
I urge you Jason H. to rebuke the gay lobby's celebration of sinful behavior, to rebuke the gay lobby's attack on the Sacrament of Marriage. At some point people need to take a stand
Ruth Sammons
16-08-2010, 02:58 AM
Saw interesting tv program recently. Identical twins, men in their late 30s (I think) were interviewed. One is married with children and straight, one is gay. The one with SSA believes he was born so. Both were brought up together in a happy, straight, nurturing home, so they had the same environment. Their DNA is identical.
The recent research points to chemicals which can adhere to and "turn off" small localised sections of the dna strand, so that while two people are born with identical dna, not all of it is active. This could mean that one twin could be more musically gifted than his brother for instance. In this case it is an explanation for the difference in sexual orientation of the twins.
Truly it is wonderful to think of. Genetics becomes more interesting than ever.
Kosta
16-08-2010, 05:39 AM
Why is the rate of homosexuality increasing? A just released studied has shown that many once heterosexual divorced caucasian women are opting to move in with other women and be lesbians in their middle age. Obviously even if genetics or chemicals in the womb are in play, its only a small part. Its because the increase in immorality and free living influences the entire town. Of course this particular study is of women, of which i already said lesbianism is a simple case of old fashion perversion.
Archimandrite Irenei
16-08-2010, 06:34 AM
From the point of view of the Church's teaching, identification of a person (much less a person's self-identification) as 'a homosexual' is something of a problematic misnomer. The Church regards homosexuality as a manifestation of disordered desire, not a foundational characteristic of the identity of a person (whatever may be the plethora of factors contributing to the character and intensity of that desire). We do not describe a person, at the level of their identity, by the description of their disordered activities; this is to confuse what the Fathers maintain as a strenuous distinction between the creature and its struggle with the passions. For example, a person may have the desire to steal, but we don't identify the 'who' of the person as 'a thief', except to describe engagement in the actual activity of thieving; when this is overcome, we cease to apply the description of the disordered passion to the person, since their true identity has been disclosed by the desire being ordered aright.
This constitutes what is certainly a major differentiation between the Orthodox Church's understanding of homosexuality and that prevalent in the world at large. In proper Orthodox language, 'a homosexual' does not exist. There are people struggling with varying degrees of desire disordered in this manner and direction; but this is a far different (and ascetically far more hopeful) thing.
Perhaps examining this in the heritage of the Church's and Fathers' anthropology might be a fruitful way to carry forward a discussion on this topic.
Father David Moser
16-08-2010, 06:55 AM
If a person is genetically programmed with homosexual desires (a point which I do not concede although will allow that the possibility, no matter how remote, could exist), then that genetic characteristic is not a part of our created nature, but rather is a distortion of nature brought about by the fall - it is a corruption of creation. Thus to say that one is "born gay" is actually the same thing as saying that one is "born with a fallen nature" or "born subject to corruption" - iow it is no big deal. We are NOT animals, slavishly subject to our desires, our nature or our passions. We are men, uniquely created by God different from the animals with free will (something the animals do not have - they cannot choose to act contrary to their nature, we can). Thus, as I noted at the very beginning of this discussion (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?4561-Born-gay&p=58451&viewfull=1#post58451), it matters not whether we are born with a sinful proclivity or whether we learn it (nature or nurture) - what does matter is how we respond to that sinful proclivity. Do we choose to cooperate with it and wallow in sin? or do we choose to rise above it, resist the temptations and passions which pull at us and follow Christ instead.
We were not created with the capacity or inclination for homosexuality - it is a corruption and distortion of our nature brought about by our sinfulness. If it is "genetic" (and I personally do not believe that it is) then that just confirms that the fallen nature has found expression in the physical body. If it is "learned" (and I personally think that it is) then that just confirms that our very society and psychology are tainted by the fall. Either way it is not natural (if we define natural as "how God created us") and is a distortion of nature brought about by the corruption to which we became subject due to the fall.
Whether it is "nature" or "nurture" the response is the same - to resist temptation and flee from it, to exercise our free will to act contrary to our fallen nature and to become new creatures with a new nature in Christ through the ascetic labor of self denial, through ascending the cross with Christ that we might die with Him and therefore raised with Him, and by following Christ, so that we might say with the Apostle, it is not I that live, but Christ in me.
Fr David Moser
Jason H.
16-08-2010, 07:06 AM
from the point of view of the church's teaching, identification of a person (much less a person's self-identification) as 'a homosexual' is something of a problematic misnomer. The church regards homosexuality as a manifestation of disordered desire, not a foundational characteristic of the identity of a person (whatever may be the plethora of factors contributing to the character and intensity of that desire). We do not describe a person, at the level of their identity, by the description of their disordered activities; this is to confuse what the fathers maintain as a strenuous distinction between the creature and its struggle with the passions. For example, a person may have the desire to steal, but we don't identify the 'who' of the person as 'a thief', except to describe engagement in the actual activity of thieving; when this is overcome, we cease to apply the description of the disordered passion to the person, since their true identity has been disclosed by the desire being ordered aright.
This constitutes what is certainly a major differentiation between the orthodox church's understanding of homosexuality and that prevalent in the world at large. In proper orthodox language, 'a homosexual' does not exist. There are people struggling with varying degrees of desire disordered in this manner and direction; but this is a far different (and ascetically far more hopeful) thing.
Perhaps examining this in the heritage of the church's and fathers' anthropology might be a fruitful way to carry forward a discussion on this topic.
amen father! Amen!
Jan Sunqvist
16-08-2010, 08:01 AM
The arguments on this topic run like this in most Christian denominations and other religions ad nauseum.
For a person with same sex attraction (to avoid the 'misnomer') there is really two options. One is to make peace with it and try to live one's life as best one can, enjoy civil rights and unions whether they are called civil unions, secular marriages or Bob, and frankly from a secular perspective I think Bobs are to be encouraged over promiscuity.
The other option is that of a practicing Christian, Muslim, etc who wishes to voluntarily become celibate. As Christ said, there are those that make themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake. I think this forum, being on a website called monachos should deal with this topic. How to practice celibacy for those in the world. And as any single person striving for celibacy and living in the modern world will tell you, it is no easy matter.
If I may indulge in copying the paragraph I posted earlier, I think this is what would be a far better topic to discuss and clarify. It seems to me, it is pointing to the very principle of making oneself eunuch for the sake of Kingdom of Heaven.
""Celibacy caused by the desire for moral perfection is like a ladder by which one ascends to the highest rank. The sublimation of sexual energy which is inevitably accumulated in the body, although it is not at all an easy thing to do, can only be achieved through this way leading directly upwards. Then a real "transfiguration of Eros" takes place, when the cross of opposing sexual desires becomes a struggle with the "old person" in oneself. All the stress here is put into a free direction of one’s will towards Heaven, which attracts God's spiritual energy to the person. ""
Fr. Gregory (Hallam)
16-08-2010, 08:56 AM
OK Father Irenaeus, following that I promise I will refrain from using the word "heterosexual" in future but rather refer to those with OSD ... Opposite Sex Desires, without of course in any way thereby modifying your distinction between "ordered" (OSD) and "disordered" (SSD). Are you happy with that? If not, why not? This is not semantics but goes rather to the heart of the matter. If we should dispense with the notion of "orientation-in/as-personhood" for one, it seems to me that we must also do that for the other .... at least in the way you have articulated this.
I have a second but not unconnected question. Presumably when a person has been deified then the sinful parasitism that is SSD will fall away and OSD will reassert itself? Is this so? ... save of course for Christ's teaching about not marrying in heaven ... the implication of which is that we become asexual in the kingdom to come. Comments?
Fr. Gregory (Hallam)
16-08-2010, 09:05 AM
I think that Father David (Moser's) presentation of the matter accords much more with my own although "our" sin can only be understood as the collective aspect of the Fall in human nature rather than personal culpability. I have known gay Christian people commit suicide because they thought were personally responsible somehow for something not of their own choosing. One of these persons took his own life on "my watch" so to speak so you can appreciate the burden I have to carry here.
Jan's intervention is timely though. Allow me to ask a question which I hope will be answered by everyone but especially by those with OSD (Opposite Sex Desires). How does a single person throughout life (perforce single but not wishing to be single) remain a virgin until death? Is this a realistic approach or an aspirational one? Forgive my cynicism / realism but eternal virginity in the single state, even historically speaking, seems to me to be a vanishingly small phenomenon.
Jan Sunqvist
16-08-2010, 09:13 AM
Something just struck me as rather odd that I never thought about before...
A lot of Orthodox Clergy is married, so they don't necessarily have a lot of personal experience with remaining completely celibate for a very long time. The monks who are completely celibate have the help of being in a monastery, away from sexual temptation (assuming they are not tempted by same sex attraction) and also the help of being non stop in a spiritual environment, engaged with prayer, services or other work to help the 'sublimation'
So in a way, single, unmarried lay Christian folk face the biggest difficulties with regards to this question...
Dora Spyros
16-08-2010, 02:46 PM
It seems dangerous, spiritually speaking, to make an assessment regarding the level of difficulty we think any group may have in combating the passions. This is not written in an attempt to diminish the struggle. Such logismoi, however, seem to detract us from our own ascetic work and repentance. For example, a person placed on dialysis must drastically restrict his fluid intake. It is extremely difficult. If he were to allow his thoughts to dwell on all those around him who are drinking freely on a hot summer day when he is so thirsty, this restriction becomes infinitely more difficult to bear. Nevertheless, he must comply with these restrictions for his health.
St Cyril of Alexandria provide the following instruction:
For we are taught through this example [of Peter's denial of Jesus] not to slacken in God's service by inconsiderately dwelling on our own infirmities. We are, rather, to trust in him who is able to make all of us strong, and we are to boast in God's miraculous works and favour shown to us who were beyond hope.
Metropolitan Hierotheos states:
Many of us realise that we are ill, we have a sense of being spiritually ill, but we are completely or partially ignorant of how to be cured. I think that Orthodoxy, being a therapeutic science, ought to be explaining these very topical matters. We are certain that one of the messages which the Orthodox Church should be offering to the contemporary stumbling world is the message of its sickness and, at the same time, of its healing.
...to cure the passions is mainly to transform them... Since the dispassionate passions, the natural, blameless passions, have been perverted, it is to be expected that with therapeutic treatment we shall change them. This is the curing of the passions. Abba Poemen said to Abba Isaac: "We were not taught to be slayers of the body but to be slayers of the passions." We must understand "slayers of the passions" in the sense of converting the passions. ...
It seems the patristic understanding of φιλια, αγαπη, and Divine ερως, (which is vastly different from the modern day understanding of eros) helps identify our fallen desires. This identification, with the help of our spiritual father, forms the foundation for our cure.
Fr. Gregory (Hallam)
16-08-2010, 03:24 PM
Dear Dora
All of which is eminently true .... and achievable .... for the Orthodox. To expect this from the vast bulk of our societies in the west which are not Orthodox and whose members do not have the therapy of the fathers, the mysteries and the faith of the Church is as beyond conceivable as it is possible to be. This is why I am reluctant to support those who try and legislate or campaign as if this can actually make any difference. Your constitutional distinction in the US between the civil law and religious faith seems to us in Europe to be observed only imperfectly.
Jason H.
16-08-2010, 05:32 PM
What's really bad about open homosexuals these days though is that they promote their lifestyle; they celebrate their sin, thus causing others to sin too. Not only they don't repent, but they bully and intimidate anyone who openly asserts that homosexual sex is a sin. The Gay lobby has declared open war on Family (i.e., Christian) values...and that is a far greater sin than an individual act.
I urge you Jason H. to rebuke the gay lobby's celebration of sinful behavior, to rebuke the gay lobby's attack on the Sacrament of Marriage. At some point people need to take a stand
Angelos,
What exactly is wrong with two people who are in love, whether one believes that they are in love, showing affection towards each other? Do not heterosexuals do the same thing in public? I am greatly confused as to how they cause others to sin. Please provide a detailed explanation of this.
Please provide instances in which they bully and intimidate.
The "gay lobby" has only wished to have access to the same CIVIL RIGHTS that are awarded to heterosexuals. It is not an attack on "family values." Again, please provide information, instances, studies.
To save marriage, how about banning divorce?
Ignatius, a sinner.
Fr Raphael Vereshack
16-08-2010, 05:49 PM
Fr Irenei wrote:
In proper Orthodox language, 'a homosexual' does not exist. There are people struggling with varying degrees of desire disordered in this manner and direction; but this is a far different (and ascetically far more hopeful) thing.
Perhaps examining this in the heritage of the Church's and Fathers' anthropology might be a fruitful way to carry forward a discussion on this topic.
This to me is the only way forward. Otherwise we either sanction what is harmful to people according to the Church & Fathers. Or else we describe an environment (ie that which has been given to us by nature) which is virtually impossible to struggle against. Thus to gain any confidence in struggling with the passions there must be a clear distinction between human nature and its various distortions.
One last word since it has not been noted yet. Children's dispositions (ie those being formed) are affected not only by direct influences of teaching in society and in the home. They are also spiritually affected to a great extent by more subtle things such as the given tone in society, its attractions, and manner of conveying itself. Since I have seen all manner of pathologies of confusion in infants, youngsters and teenagers nowadays as compared to previous times, even those from well ordered Christian homes, I can only assume that infants and young people are like spiritual radars absorbing many unseen influences we are scarcely aware of. I believe that Elder Paisios speaks of this so that our manner of being has more influence on the young than does our direct teaching.
This is important because most all of us have absorbed things into ourselves- spiritually, morally & psychologically- which it is very difficult to not see as if they were part of our God given being. But conversion certainly involves the gradual awakening to what we really are and what are the distortions. This is the whole basis of spiritual direction.
In Christ- Fr Raphael
Angelos,
What exactly is wrong with two people who are in love, whether one believes that they are in love, showing affection towards each other? Do not heterosexuals do the same thing in public? I am greatly confused as to how they cause others to sin. Please provide a detailed explanation of this.
Please provide instances in which they bully and intimidate.
The "gay lobby" has only wished to have access to the same CIVIL RIGHTS that are awarded to heterosexuals. It is not an attack on "family values." Again, please provide information, instances, studies.
To save marriage, how about banning divorce?
Ignatius, a sinner.
Jason,
There can be no reasoned defense of homosexuality from a Christian perspective. Homosexual behavior violates the most basic dictates of natural law. The first chapter of Romans could not be more clear on this point. It was not until very recently that this sin has even discussed publicly among professed Christians, for the simple reason that it was long regarded as improper to even speak of it.
Unless one accepts the very basic proposition that homosexual conduct cannot be condoned by Christians in any context, there is simply no sense in engaging in debate about homosexual conduct be it public or private. Put simply, it is an object of everyone's concern for the same reason that any sinful conduct that takes place in public or private is an object of everyone's concern-- because it puts those who participate it in danger of eternal loss, and as Christians we cannot be indifferent to anyone's eternal loss.
I do not mean to come off as hostile. But there really is no sense in presenting homosexual conduct as an open issue from the standpoint of Christian morality. We must of course discuss how those who are susceptible to this vice can cleave to Christ and struggle, as we all must struggle, to properly order our passions. But to give it the name of "love" radically misconstrues what Christian love, as revealed in the kenosis of the Bridgegroom for the sake of His Bride, consists in.
In Christ,
Evan
Fr. Gregory (Hallam)
16-08-2010, 05:57 PM
Dear Father Raphael
Influences abound this way and that but I do hope you are not suggesting that homosexuality can somehow be "caught" .... that it is a contagious thing, spread by Gay Pride etc. There is absolutely no evidence for this whatsoever. Nobody develops a liking (which previously did not exist) for homosexual desires and behaviours simply by being exposed to others being up front about them. One thing has changed though. Things which at one time were repressed or hidden are now out in the open. Is that a good thing thing or a bad thing? Don't ask, don't tell? Is that healthy?
Fr. Gregory (Hallam)
16-08-2010, 06:04 PM
Dear Evan
Why are you overreacting? Ignatius only referred to "showing affection" ... the rest of his post quite reasonably asked for evidence that gay people were out and out to attack and undermine family life.
"Showing affection" isn't necessarily sticking your tongue down someone's throat. A lot of this is cultural anyway.
I remember being quite taken aback making my first visit to Damascus several years ago. As we are often reminded by the Syrian government (and the Iranians etc. etc.): "Homosexuality does not exist in Syria." So imagine what I thought when I saw, time after time, men walking down the city streets (including soldiers) holding hands. Homosexuals? ... almost certainly not! They would be the ones NOT holding hands.
Angelos
16-08-2010, 06:05 PM
Angelos,
What exactly is wrong with two people who are in love, whether one believes that they are in love, showing affection towards each other? Do not heterosexuals do the same thing in public? I am greatly confused as to how they cause others to sin. Please provide a detailed explanation of this.
Please provide instances in which they bully and intimidate.
The "gay lobby" has only wished to have access to the same CIVIL RIGHTS that are awarded to heterosexuals. It is not an attack on "family values." Again, please provide information, instances, studies.
To save marriage, how about banning divorce?
Ignatius, a sinner.
Jason posted: "Please provide instances in which they bully and intimidate." I will. The gay lobby published the names of all the small businesses that donated for Proposition 8 in California. They started demonstrating against some donors, really hurting their livelihood. Donating for political causes is a civil right. Trying to hurt businesses and individuals who donate against causes is bullying.
The gay lobby also attacks Churches who actively oppose their agenda, demonstrating outside Catholic Churches, defaming Catholics and defaming Mormons (who actively supported Prop. 8).
Latest example is the Retail chain "Target" who is being "asked" to donate to pro-gay politicians (while gays demonstrate outside their stores) because they dared to donate to a pro-family politician. Jason, I'm sure you'll agree that all these are examples of intimidation and bullying.
Marriage is NOT a "civil right". It is a social privilege awarded for the protection of kids. It has always been restricted to one man and one woman who are both adults and not relatives. You can't marry your mother, or your sister, or a group of people, or your dog, or a child. Marriage confers tax and healthcare and legal privileges, thus it is not a "right"
Homosexuals celebrating and advertising their sin are causing scandal, which is a grave sin in and of itself. They glamorize sin and make it more likely that people with homosexual tendencies will choose sin vs. chastity (which is the Church's teaching for people with homosexual urges).
Jason, do you even agree that homosexual acts are sinful? If not, how can you call yourself Orthodox??
Administrator
16-08-2010, 06:13 PM
All future posts in this thread should deal directly with patristic considerations of the matter at hand (for example, patristic understandings of anthropology, homosexuality, passions), and no further posts should be made that deal with the topic from a modern political / social / personal standpoints without some explicit patristic reference and bearing.
Please remember that this is a forum for the discussion of patristic thought in the Orthodox Church, and discussions which do not deal directly with this focus are well outside our scope.
Dear Evan
Why are you overreacting? Ignatius only referred to "showing affection" ... the rest of his post quite reasonably asked for evidence that gay people were out and out to attack and undermine family life.
"Showing affection" isn't necessarily sticking your tongue down someone's throat. A lot of this is cultural anyway.
I remember being quite taken aback making my first visit to Damascus several years ago. As we are often reminded by the Syrian government (and the Iranians etc. etc.): "Homosexuality does not exist in Syria." So imagine what I thought when I saw, time after time, men walking down the city streets (including soldiers) holding hands. Homosexuals? ... almost certainly not! They would be the ones NOT holding hands.
Father, your blessing:
Jason asked what was wrong with public displays of homosexual affection and equated it to public displays of heterosexual affection. While I imagine we can agree that modesty among heterosexuals is a good thing, such an equation raises the question of what premises we're working from. If we cannot agree on certain premises, we're not going to engage in productive discussion.
I apologize if I've spoken too stridently. I realize that this is a sensitive topic. But, frankly, it's a settled one in important aspects, and I was hoping that we might acknowledge that before we start getting into the nature-versus-nurture debate. I'm very familiar with the argument that, if people are born gay, it's positively immoral for them not to express themselves sexually in the only way they know how. Perhaps, as you've suggested, I've overreacted to a certain "tenor" of some of the arguments here rather than properly ascertaining their substance, dispassionately.
If I have, I ask the forgiveness of all present.
In Christ,
Evan
Fr Raphael Vereshack
16-08-2010, 06:30 PM
Dear Father Raphael
Influences abound this way and that but I do hope you are not suggesting that homosexuality can somehow be "caught" .... that it is a contagious thing, spread by Gay Pride etc. There is absolutely no evidence for this whatsoever. Nobody develops a liking (which previously did not exist) for homosexual desires and behaviours simply by being exposed to others being up front about them. One thing has changed though. Things which at one time were repressed or hidden are now out in the open. Is that a good thing thing or a bad thing? Don't ask, don't tell? Is that healthy?
Dear Fr Gregory,
In a way I am suggesting that these things can be 'caught'. As St Paul said: 'discern the spirits' through prayer & guidance, so that we are careful of what enters the heart & mind.
I consider that many things now in the open, do in fact harm us on all levels, since we are sentient beings, both materially & spiritually. What we perceive indeed gives off a resonance not only directly as to what specifically is permitted (and which admittedly we may specifically agree with or not), but in a more general way attracts towards the understanding, of more & more being possible, permissible & 'discoverable in ourselves'. It can seem strange at first sight, but such a social resonance even affects seemingly completely unrelated areas such as an Orthodox Christian demanding the right to express themselves more deeply in prayer, etc.
I believe firmly that the total affect of all of this 'display of openness', has indeed been profound, for it erodes the sense of how central, self control and boundaries are to what we are as human.
In Christ- Fr Raphael
Angelos
16-08-2010, 06:39 PM
Early Teachings on Homosexuality
Some argue that neither the Bible nor apostolic tradition condemns the practice of homosexuality. Passages such as Leviticus 18:22–30, Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and Jude 7 serve as ample proof that Scripture indeed condemns homosexuality. Below is ample proof from tradition. The Fathers are especially harsh against the practice of pederasty, the homosexual corruption of boys by men.
Basil the Great
"He who is guilty of unseemliness with males will be under discipline for the same time as adulterers" (Letters 217:62 [A.D. 367]).
"If you [O, monk] are young in either body or mind, shun the companionship of other young men and avoid them as you would a flame. For through them the enemy has kindled the desires of many and then handed them over to eternal fire, hurling them into the vile pit of the five cities under the pretense of spiritual love. . . . At meals take a seat far from other young men. In lying down to sleep let not their clothes be near yours, but rather have an old man between you. When a young man converses with you, or sings psalms facing you, answer him with eyes cast down, lest perhaps by gazing at his face you receive a seed of desire sown by the enemy and reap sheaves of corruption and ruin. Whether in the house or in a place where there is no one to see your actions, be not found in his company under the pretense either of studying the divine oracles or of any other business whatsoever, however necessary" (The Renunciation of the World [A.D. 373]).
John Chrysostom
"[The pagans] were addicted to the love of boys, and one of their wise men made a law that pederasty . . . should not be allowed to slaves, as if it was an honorable thing; and they had houses for this purpose, in which it was openly practiced. And if all that was done among them was related, it would be seen that they openly outraged nature, and there was none to restrain them. . . . As for their passion for boys, whom they called their paedica, it is not fit to be named" (Homilies on Titus 5 [A.D. 390]).
"[Certain men in church] come in gazing about at the beauty of women; others curious about the blooming youth of boys. After this, do you not marvel that [lightning] bolts are not launched [from heaven], and all these things are not plucked up from their foundations? For worthy both of thunderbolts and hell are the things that are done; but God, who is long-suffering, and of great mercy, forbears awhile his wrath, calling you to repentance and amendment" (Homilies on Matthew 3:3 [A.D. 391]).
"All of these affections . . . were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored than the body in diseases" ([I]Homilies on Romans 4 [A.D. 391]).
"[The men] have done an insult to nature itself. And a yet more disgraceful thing than these is it, when even the women seek after these intercourses, who ought to have more shame than men" (ibid.).
"And sundry other books of the philosophers one may see full of this disease. But we do not therefore say that the thing was made lawful, but that they who received this law were pitiable, and objects for many tears. For these are treated in the same way as women that play the whore. Or rather their plight is more miserable. For in the case of the one the intercourse, even if lawless, is yet according to nature; but this is contrary both to law and nature. For even if there were no hell, and no punishment had been threatened, this would be worse than any punishment" (ibid.).
Clement of Alexandria
"All honor to that king of the Scythians, whoever Anacharsis was, who shot with an arrow one of his subjects who imitated among the Scythians the mystery of the mother of the gods . . . condemning him as having become effeminate among the Greeks, and a teacher of the disease of effeminacy to the rest of the Scythians" (Exhortation to the Greeks 2 [A.D. 190]).
"It were tedious to recount his adulteries of all sorts, and debauching of boys. For your gods did not even abstain from boys, one having loved Hylas, another Hyacinthus, another Pelops, another Chrysippus, another Ganymede. Let such gods as these be worshipped by your wives, and let them pray that their husbands be such as these—so temperate; that, emulating them in the same practices, they may be like the gods. Such gods let your boys be trained to worship, that they may grow up to be men with the accursed likeness of fornication on them received from the gods" (ibid.).
...
"In accordance with these remarks, conversation about deeds of wickedness is appropriately termed filthy [shameful] speaking, as talk about adultery and pederasty and the like" (The Instructor 6, ca. A.D. 193).
"The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong, instruction to those who hear. The Sodomites having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practicing adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys; the All-seeing Word, whose notice those who commit impieties cannot escape, cast his eye on them. Nor did the sleepless guard of humanity observe their licentiousness in silence; but dissuading us from the imitation of them, and training us up to his own temperance, and falling on some sinners, lest lust being unavenged, should break loose from all the restraints of fear, ordered Sodom to be burned,
pouring forth a little of the sagacious fire on licentiousness; lest lust, through want of punishment, should throw wide the gates to those that were rushing into voluptuousness. Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men. For those who have not committed like sins with those who are punished, will never receive a like punishment" (ibid., 8).
Cyprian of Carthage
"[T]urn your looks to the abominations, not less to be deplored, of another kind of spectacle. . . . Men are emasculated, and all the pride and vigor of their sex is effeminated in the disgrace of their enervated body; and he is more pleasing there who has most completely broken down the man into the woman. He grows into praise by virtue of his crime; and the more he is degraded, the more skillful he is considered to be. Such a one is looked upon—oh shame!—and looked upon with pleasure. . . . Nor is there wanting authority for the enticing abomination . . . that Jupiter of theirs [is] not more supreme in dominion than in vice, inflamed with earthly love in the midst of his own thunders . . . now breaking forth by the help of birds to violate the purity of boys. And now put the question: Can he who looks upon such things be healthy-minded or modest? Men imitate the gods whom they adore, and to such miserable beings their crimes become their religion" (Letters 1:8 [A.D. 253]).
"Oh, if placed on that lofty watchtower, you could gaze into the secret places—if you could open the closed doors of sleeping chambers and recall their dark recesses to the perception of sight—you would behold things done by immodest persons which no chaste eye could look upon; you would see what even to see is a crime; you would see what people embruted with the madness of vice deny that they have done, and yet hasten to do—men with frenzied lusts rushing upon men, doing things which afford no gratification even to those who do them" (ibid., 1:9).
Eusebius of Caesarea
"[H]aving forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men, he [God] adds: ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it’ [Lev. 18:24–25]" (Proof of the Gospel 4:10 [A.D. 319]).
Augustine
"[T]hose shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way" (Confessions 3:8:15 [A.D. 400]).
The Apostolic Constitutions
"[Christians] abhor all unlawful mixtures, and that which is practiced by some contrary to nature, as wicked and impious" (Apostolic Constitutions 6:11 [A.D. 400]).
Fr. Gregory (Hallam)
16-08-2010, 06:57 PM
Thank you. Back to the question then.
Did God fashion homosexuals to be gay in the womb? Are homosexuals born gay?
The second is easiest to answer from a patristic point of view. The Fathers talk about desires, behaviours and acts (see Angelos's post). AFAIK they do not address the question of the origins of homosexuality beyond Romans 1:24-25, Leviticus (and the other passages mentioned above) or matters of personal identity in the contemporary sense. In that Hieromonk Irenaeus is quite correct. Not addressing the issue of origins, however, is not the same as saying that we should have no interest in the question of origins and this would include I think contemporary research into human sexuality, (unless of course posters here think that there is a Big Conspiracy amongst scientists as well). The Fathers (St. Basil and the bees for example) have a clear attitude to "secular" learning ... use what is useful.
The first question is more difficult NOT because the Fathers equivocate on the abomination which is same sex ACTS; they do not. They are quite clear. However, there is another question. Do the Fathers suppose that God is actively and directly Himself maturing the organs in utero? I don't know any references for this (beyond Psalm 138:13-14) but at the more level of the theology of divine action and providence it seems to me that there is a defensible position that God has imparted to creation its own contingent freedom whereby natural processes (usually but not always, hence the Virginal Conception of Christ) operate according to laws and patterns discernible in created nature. Fr. Michael Pomazansky's chapter on "The Providence of God" in "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" is good on this one (3rd Edition page 145). He emphasises that the Fathers do not see the creative providence of God as micromanaging (my word) or interfering in these processes. He is sustaining the very infrastructure of creation itself at every point in space and time. "The world could not stand for an instant if God were to remove his Providence from it," (Bl. / St. Augustine).
So the first part about God "fashioning" can I think only be taken in an metaphorical sense and I think we do a disservice to the Fathers if we think they naively subscribed to the view that God is pushing atoms this way and that (usually!)
Of course the more substantive question is as follows:- "Do the Scriptures and Tradition suppose that sexual intimacy has a role outside marriage?" No they do not. "Do they have some sort of concept of 'gay marriage.'"? No they do not. Do they accept that men and women can have deep personal and affectionate friendships within their own sex. Of course they do.
I know that some have tried to hijack David and Jonathan, Sergius and Bacchus etc. to their cause ... but this is illicit. We are so hung up in the west in making a false equivalence between affection and sexual behaviour, we can't even see clearly on this one. Those Syrian soldiers holding hands in the street (see my previous post) were not gay and what they were doing was and is perfectly OK. Don't try it in Alabama though!
Jason H.
16-08-2010, 07:20 PM
Some argue that neither the Bible nor apostolic tradition condemns the practice of homosexuality. Passages such as Leviticus 18:22–30, Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and Jude 7 serve as ample proof that Scripture indeed condemns homosexuality. Below is ample proof from tradition. The Fathers are especially harsh against the practice of pederasty, the homosexual corruption of boys by men.
Leviticus is void for Christians. Christians, Gentiles, were exempt from Jewish law. I have Scripture reference but my Bible is at home so please give me time and I will provide them.
Romans 1:26–27 is referring to "lust." What was the original text from which the word was derived from? It all must be in context and translation must be accurate.
1 Corinthians 6:9 is void in the reference to "homosexual" as it is historically and literally impossible that the NT used the "homosexual" as the word did not exist, literally, until the 19th century by a German psychologist, Karoly Maria Benkert. What one is seeing is the altering of the NT. Therefore, one must go back to the source of the text and see how it reads exactly.
I don't think Jude is in the Orthodox Bible. It is not a Epistles I remember coming across.
You said, "The Fathers are especially harsh against the practice of pederasty, the homosexual corruption of boys by men." Exactly, the Fathers are referring to pederasty, not homosexuality.
Also, please read over this article in reference to the Bible and homosexuality: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~ecorebbe/id18.html
Angelos
16-08-2010, 07:31 PM
Leviticus is void for Christians. Christians, Gentiles, were exempt from Jewish law. I have Scripture reference but my Bible is at home so please give me time and I will provide them.
Romans 1:26–27 is referring to "lust." What was the original text from which the word was derived from? It all must be in context and translation must be accurate.
1 Corinthians 6:9 is void in the reference to "homosexual" as it is historically and literally impossible that the NT used the "homosexual" as the word did not exist, literally, until the 19th century by a German psychologist, Karoly Maria Benkert. What one is seeing is the altering of the NT. Therefore, one must go back to the source of the text and see how it reads exactly.
I don't think Jude is in the Orthodox Bible. It is not a Epistles I remember coming across.
You said, "The Fathers are especially harsh against the practice of pederasty, the homosexual corruption of boys by men." Exactly, the Fathers are referring to pederasty, not homosexuality.
Also, please read over this article in reference to the Bible and homosexuality: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~ecorebbe/id18.html
1 Cor.6:9 ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; μὴ πλανᾶσθε: οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται. ἀρσενοκοῖται = Those who lie with men
Romans 1:27 ὁμοίως τε καὶ οἱ ἄρσενες ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους, ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι καὶ τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν ἣν ἔδει τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἀπολαμβάνοντες.
Paul can not be clearer than that. In English:
27 And, in like manner, the men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) also, leaving the natural use of the women (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm), have burned in their lusts (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09438a.htm), one towards another: men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) with men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm), working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm).
Jason H.
16-08-2010, 07:46 PM
1 Cor.6:9 ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; μὴ πλανᾶσθε: οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται. ἀρσενοκοῖται = Those who lie with men
Romans 1:27 ὁμοίως τε καὶ οἱ ἄρσενες ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους, ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι καὶ τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν ἣν ἔδει τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἀπολαμβάνοντες. Paul can not be clearer than that. In English: 27 And, in like manner, the men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) also, leaving the natural use of the women (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm), have burned in their lusts (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09438a.htm), one towards another: men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) with men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm), working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm).
So, 1 Cor. 6:9 reads "those who lie with men." Which I don't read Greek but is the preceeding word "men who those who life with men?" If not, it is inaccurate to say or refer it to homosexuality.
"The word lust is phonetically similar to the ancient Roman "lustrum", which literally meant "five years". This was the cycle time for the ritual expiation of "sins" called the lustration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lustration) as practiced in ancient Greek and Roman cultures. Sexual intercourse was one of a list of sins requiring lustration"
"Lust, in the domain of psychoanalysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoanalysis) and psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology), is often treated as a case of "heightened libido (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libido)"."
Angelos
16-08-2010, 07:56 PM
So, 1 Cor. 6:9 reads "those who lie with men." Which I don't read Greek but is the preceeding word "men who those who life with men?" If not, it is inaccurate to say or refer it to homosexuality.
"The word lust is phonetically similar to the ancient Roman "lustrum", which literally meant "five years". This was the cycle time for the ritual expiation of "sins" called the lustration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lustration) as practiced in ancient Greek and Roman cultures. Sexual intercourse was one of a list of sins requiring lustration"
"Lust, in the domain of psychoanalysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoanalysis) and psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology), is often treated as a case of "heightened libido (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libido)"."
No Jason is not. In 1 Cor 6:9 Paul gives a list of people (who he calls unjust=ἄδικοι) who will NOT inherit the Kindom of God (in Greek:θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν). The list goes:οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ (nor the adulterers (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01163a.htm)) οὔτε μαλακοὶ (nor the effeminate) οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται (nor those who lie with men). It's a list of people who commit specific sins, one of which is homosexual acts. Those people will NOT inherit the kingdom of God.
Also Pauls speaks against homosexual actis in 1Tim 1:9-10 "9 εἰδὼς τοῦτο, ὅτι δικαίῳ νόμος οὐ κεῖται, ἀνόμοις δὲ καὶ ἀνυποτάκτοις, ἀσεβέσι καὶ ἁμαρτωλοῖς, ἀνοσίοις καὶ βεβήλοις, πατρολῴαις καὶ μητρολῴαις, ἀνδροφόνοις, 10 πόρνοις, ἀρσενοκοίταις, ἀνδραποδισταῖς, ψεύσταις, ἐπιόρκοις, καὶ εἴ τι ἕτερον τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀντίκειται.
In English: That the law (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09071a.htm) is not made for the just (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08571c.htm) man (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) but for the unjust (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08010c.htm) and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the wicked (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) and defiled, for murderers (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07441a.htm) of fathers and murderers (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07441a.htm) of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for them who lie with men, for menstealers, for liars (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09469a.htm), for perjured (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11696a.htm) persons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm), and whatever other thing is contrary to sound doctrine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11330a.htm)
Archimandrite Irenei
16-08-2010, 07:57 PM
I personally think there is almost no fruit to be had whatsoever in simply quoting extracted lines from the Scriptures or the Fathers on the sinful nature of same-sex activities; these are well known and have been quoted in thousands of posts on hundreds of web sites across the internet. If this is the level to which the conversation must fall, then it threatens to be nothing more than a re-hash of tired and tried exchanges that have long since worn themselves out elsewhere. No one who reads the Fathers could question that they are against sexual activity between those of the same sex, and similarly with the few injunctions in the Scriptures. There is really no need to 'prove' this.
What is necessary is to understand the Church's vision of the human person, as the Fathers articulate true human nature, and to use this to help form a response to the warped idea that a person can be described as 'gay' or 'a homosexual'; and then, having responded to that basic misunderstanding of identity and personhood with relation to the desires and passions, to see how this informs a means of responding to passionate impulses, so that a person suffering from such disordered desires may combat them, overcoming in the first instance any actual engagement in sinful activities, and in due course quieting even the internal manifestations of such disordered desire, which the person wrongly believes (and is encouraged by society to believe, however wrongly) means he 'is gay' or 'is a homosexual'.
Jason H.
16-08-2010, 08:08 PM
No Jason is not. Paul gives a list of people (who he calls unjust=ἄδικοι) who will NOT inherit the Kindom of God (in Greek:θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν). The list goes:οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ (nor the adulterers (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01163a.htm)) οὔτε μαλακοὶ (nor the effeminate) οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται (nor those who lie with men). It's a list of people who commit specific sins, one of which is homosexual acts. Those people will NOT inherit the kingdom of God
So adultery as defined said by Jesus is not just those who commit adultery but also those who look at another with desire/lust. That's a lot of people.
"I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town." Matthew 10:15
Angelos
16-08-2010, 08:30 PM
I personally think there is almost no fruit to be had whatsoever in simply quoting extracted lines from the Scriptures or the Fathers on the sinful nature of same-sex activities; these are well known and have been quoted in thousands of posts on hundreds of web sites across the internet. If this is the level to which the conversation must fall, then it threatens to be nothing more than a re-hash of tired and tried exchanges that have long since worn themselves out elsewhere. No one who reads the Fathers could question that they are against sexual activity between those of the same sex, and similarly with the few injunctions in the Scriptures. There is really no need to 'prove' this.
What is necessary is to understand the Church's vision of the human person, as the Fathers articulate true human nature, and to use this to help form a response to the warped idea that a person can be described as 'gay' or 'a homosexual'; and then, having responded to that basic misunderstanding of identity and personhood with relation to the desires and passions, to see how this informs a means of responding to passionate impulses, so that a person suffering from such disordered desires may combat them, overcoming in the first instance any actual engagement in sinful activities, and in due course quieting even the internal manifestations of such disordered desire, which the person wrongly believes (and is encouraged by society to believe, however wrongly) means he 'is gay' or 'is a homosexual'.
Father,
in order for the Orthodox vision (which I completely embrace) to work it implies that the person in question acknowledges that his/her same-gender desires are, as you say "disordered". If someone refuses to acknowledge that and in fact does the opposite by celebrating same-gender desires then what is the Church's response??
What should be a priest's response if someone who claims that he is "Orthodox" and wants to have full participation in the Sacraments comes and says to the priest "There is nothing "disordered" with a same-gender sexual relationship. I'm proud to have a same-sex sexual partner and I want to marry him. My desires are as good or bad as those who are in committed (married) man-woman relationships. In reality this is the stance of most, if not all, openly gay persons. So what is the Church's response then?
Angelos
16-08-2010, 08:39 PM
So adultery as defined said by Jesus is not just those who commit adultery but also those who look at another with desire/lust. That's a lot of people.
"I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town." Matthew 10:15
Very interesting quote you picked Jason. Who Jesus talks about in Matthew 10:15?? Let's read Matthew 10:14 "14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet" Those who openly do not hear the words of the Apostles.
That would include people who celebrate sinful acts, (e.g., homosexual acts) and refuse to repent for their sins (as Jesus commanded " Jesus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) came into Galilee (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06341c.htm), preaching the gospel (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm) of the kingdom of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08646a.htm), 15 and saying: The time is accomplished and the kingdom of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08646a.htm) is at hand. Repent and believe the gospel (Mark 1:15).
Fr. Gregory (Hallam)
16-08-2010, 08:53 PM
Dear Hieromonk Irenaeus
In accordance with your desire for a more holistic debate concerning the human person and an avoidance of proof texting, may I ask you concerning this:-
and in due course quieting even the internal manifestations of such disordered desire, which the person wrongly believes (and is encouraged by society to believe, however wrongly) means he 'is gay' or 'is a homosexual'.
I asked you in an earlier post if you thought that ordered desire would in such circumstances reassert itself once parasitic disordered desire had been quenched. You seem to be suggesting here that such a person would rather become asexual. This issue needs to be addressed in the context of sexuality being much. much more than physical intimacy and especially of the genital sort. Also where does the redemption of our WHOLE humanity end up if this important aspect is lobotomised into neutrality. This is not how the Fathers understood dispassion.
Archimandrite Irenei
16-08-2010, 08:57 PM
Dear Father, you seem to have made a leap into the assumption that the elimination of disordered desire means the eradication of desire itself. Asceticism is not about removing desire; it is about eradicating passion, which is a dominating enslavement to the disorder of desire. Desire itself is part of the faculty of created human nature. Quieting and eradicating the disordered movements and habituations of it, is precisely what allows true, free and godly desire to be exercised.
Jan Sunqvist
16-08-2010, 09:13 PM
Fr. Irenaeus, I think I am beginning to understand the reason you consider the terms 'homosexual' and 'gay' as misnomers. From the perspective of the Church teaching I see that those words don't really exist.
But what does exist in reality, at least at this point in time, is a lot of people who experience life long same sex attractions. I have heard an Anchorite monk say that just like tying a finger will with time atrophy it, so the passions may be starved and better controlled the longer one has them tied up.
Now here is my question, and I mean it in the best possible way. How successful is the Orthodox Church in helping people with life long celibacy? I know it's an individual matter and there may be no statistics, but in my generation (under 30) I know of a lot of people who left religion because of this very issue. (Both Orthodox and non-Orthodox) Not just that they stopped going to Church but they also developed severe 'defense mechanisms' toward it and its teachings.
On the other hand, I even heard one Orthodox person say that he is actively engaging in same sex relations and receives weekly communion, without confession, and this in a country with strong Orthodox roots. He implied he was not the only one.
So what is the practical reality for single unmarried people who time and time again fail in the goal of celibacy, whether this happens through same sex relations, self-abuse, or relations outside of marriage?
I think I understand clearly what the aim is, what I don't understand is how are those that have lost hope and will in striving for this aim, helped spiritually to regain hope, to be able to see that this goal is realistically possible for everyone who wishes to struggle.
Jason H.
16-08-2010, 09:28 PM
Very interesting quote you picked Jason. Who Jesus talks about in Matthew 10:15?? Let's read Matthew 10:14 "14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet" Those who openly do not hear the words of the Apostles.
That would include people who celebrate sinful acts, (e.g., homosexual acts) and refuse to repent for their sins (as Jesus commanded " Jesus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) came into Galilee (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06341c.htm), preaching the gospel (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm) of the kingdom of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08646a.htm), 15 and saying: The time is accomplished and the kingdom of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08646a.htm) is at hand. Repent and believe the gospel (Mark 1:15).
Angelos,
Ok, so the people who have not heard the words of Christ, and if they are homosexual, then they will be allowed into the kingdom. If homosexuality is such a deviancy (sp?) and such an abomination, why would Christ make such a statement that Sodom would enter the kingdom of heaven?
And I agree with you on repenting of sins.
Angelos
16-08-2010, 09:41 PM
Angelos,
Ok, so the people who have not heard the words of Christ, and if they are homosexual, then they will be allowed into the kingdom. If homosexuality is such a deviancy (sp?) and such an abomination, why would Christ make such a statement that Sodom would enter the kingdom of heaven?
And I agree with you on repenting of sins.
Dear Jason,
I do not believe that homosexual acts are any more sinful than, for example, adultery. My biggest issue is the refusal to acknowledge it as such (a sin, a "disorder" as Father Irenaeus mentioned) by the so-called "gay community". Celebrating homosexual sin and trying to intimidate those who oppose it are the biggest sin for me.
Which is why I want to ask you again: do you agree that homosexual acts are sinful and that, as Father Irenaeus posted, such a "person (is) suffering from disordered desires"
Jason H.
16-08-2010, 09:44 PM
Angelos,
I cannot respond as the Mods have already made this announcement. If you wish you may PM me.
IMPORTANT NOTE - please read carefully
All future posts in this thread should deal directly with patristic considerations of the matter at hand (for example, patristic understandings of anthropology, homosexuality, passions), and no further posts should be made that deal with the topic from a modern political / social / personal standpoints without some explicit patristic reference and bearing.
Please remember that this is a forum for the discussion of patristic thought in the Orthodox Church, and discussions which do not deal directly with this focus are well outside our scope.
Fr. Gregory (Hallam)
16-08-2010, 10:01 PM
Dear Fr. Irenaeus
I am pleased to have your clarification about dispassion. I agree.
Jan Sunqvist
16-08-2010, 10:06 PM
Dear Kosta,
I agree with you the world is a troubled place. But I also believe that Christianity or any other religion or revelation cannot be forced onto the world or any individual. And I think Christians are called to work in a Christian way. As Chist said
'Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.'
I think this is all we can aspire toward, and hope that the world does not destroy itself in the mean time...
Jan Sunqvist
17-08-2010, 01:52 AM
I am still hoping someone will reply to my post #170, but I would like to ask one more question in light of Father Irenaeus's distinction between disordered desire and godly desire. I do realise that with my next question I may be indulging in trouble making, please forgive me, but I am actually serious about the question.
Let's say two men who both happen to be attracted to the same sex, come to an Orthodox priest and say: 'Father, we are both Orthodox Christian. We care for each other deeply. We well understand that fornication and same sex sexual activity is a sin and we do not engage in it. We wish to live together and make a vow to each other to grow in Christ together. To care for each other spiritually. Will you bless us with the sacrament of Adelphopoiesis (rite of brotherhood)?'
What should the Father do? Would Orthodox Churches sanction this in this day and age? Now that we made a distinction between the disordered desire and godly desire, is there something standing in the way of their spiritual union? Would this be helpful for them, that even though they are celibate, they have a possibility of having a life partner?
I may very well be making a grave mistake in my thinking, but at this moment I don't see it. This just occurred to me reading former threads on these topics, and the striking similarity of this notion to Plato's Socratic philosophy that although not Christian, is still considered valuable in some Christian circles. (I cannot abbreviate his discourses, but in Symposium and Phaedrus, possibly in some parts of the Laws, now I can't remember, Plato/Socrates comes to the conclusion that expression of physical sexuality between males is ultimately destructive, but that if the lovers can conquer the wild and passionate horse, their love would then be the best way for the growth of the wings (soul and the myth of the chariot))
Please forgive the Platonic reference, I understand that it has little relation to Orthodox Christian teaching. Still what would/should be the response to the above mentioned scenario?
Father David Moser
17-08-2010, 04:05 AM
But what does exist in reality, at least at this point in time, is a lot of people who experience life long same sex attractions.
On the other hand, I even heard one Orthodox person say that he is actively engaging in same sex relations and receives weekly communion, without confession, and this in a country with strong Orthodox roots. He implied he was not the only one....
First, allow me to expound a little on the idea of "disordered desire" here. I do in fact realize that homosexual acts have been around a long time, much longer than our modern society, so I don't mean to suggest that it is a modern phenomenon. However, the prevalence of same sex attraction in our modern society seems to indicate to me a problem. I am trained as a psychologist and so I naturally look at such "disordered" or "non-natural" behavior from that perspective. I adopt a lot of the structure of development provided in the theories of Erik Erikson. The idea of developmental stages, especially those in adolescence (identity) and early adulthood (intimacy) provide (imo) some insight into same sex attraction. These two stages are often conflated by adolescents and young adults but are in fact very distinct and one must be resolved independently of the other.
The thing that I think enlightens the discussion of homosexuality is the stage of "intimacy". In our society, if one looks at the messages that are constantly shoved at us through the media, especially in advertising, proclaim to us that emotional intimacy must always be accompanied by physical intimacy and in fact physical intimacy is a necessary precursor to true emotional intimacy. This (false) norm, which is shoved at us 24/7/365 promotes a certain confusion in both the concepts of identity and intimacy. If intimacy issues arise before the identity is established then they can "unnaturally" affect the identity. Thus if we (even unwittingly) adopt the idea that physical intimacy must always be a part of emotional intimacy then the conclusion that we come to is that "if I feel emotionally close to someone, then I must be physically intimate as well", otherwise 1. it is not a true feeling or 2. I am being a hypocrite and false to myself. (Please understand this is probably a book length discussion, perhaps a doctoral dissertation in the theory of developmental psychology and so I am abbreviating horrendously and jumping quickly to conclusions without fully, or even at all in some cases developing the argument).
Anyway this false conclusion brought about by a false ideal promoted in our society then leads one to assume "if I feel an emotional intimacy with N. who is of the same gender as I, then I must also be physically intimate with N. or I have denied our emotional intimacy and it is false" If the identity is not yet firmly established at this point, then that false ideal gets incorporated into the identity: "if I feel emotionally intimate with others of the same gender then I must be homosexual". This assumption gets ingrained into the personality and is simply assumed to be true. This identity confusion and false intimacy are at epidemic proportions in our society and so have created this "crisis" of homosexuality. In fact this is a confused and false identity based on a false notion of intimacy (but one which is promoted by our society).
Now we don't even touch here the passion of "love of pleasure" which also plays a strong role in this epidemic (to go back to my own adolescence and pull a saying which is both assumed to be true and which has become part of the mainstream ethic, "if it feels good do it"). There are many reasons that this "disordered passion" has become rampant - but make no mistake it is disordered and it is the result of our sin (and yes, Fr Gregory, I do speak here of the "sinfulness of all humanity").
Let's say two men who both happen to be attracted to the same sex, come to an Orthodox priest and say: 'Father, we are both Orthodox Christian. We care for each other deeply. We well understand that fornication and same sex sexual activity is a sin and we do not engage in it. We wish to live together and make a vow to each other to grow in Christ together. To care for each other spiritually. Will you bless us with the sacrament of Adelphopoiesis (rite of brotherhood)?'
This, in my opinion, is a misuse an distortion of this blessing (not a sacrament!) The service of adlphopoiesis is not about "living together and making a vow to each other to grow in Christ together" - it was a means of including a person not related by blood into the legal line of inheritance. It date from the time when the Byzantine Church fufilled the role of civil government for the Greeks (Rum) living under the Turkish yoke. The Byzantine/Greek civil government could not be tolerated as it would serve as a center for resistance to the Turk overlord - and so the Church was co-opted (a distortion of the role of the Church, btw) into that place. This service is purely a legal means of joining the inheritance of two houses, not related by blood or marriage. So, to answer your question, as a priest, I would say, "No this is not proper. If you wish to live together in chastity and mutual friendship, then do so, no particular blessing is necessary for this for laymen."
Fr David Moser
Fr. Gregory (Hallam)
17-08-2010, 09:19 AM
I agree with all of this Father David. This false conjoining of emotional intimacy and physical intimacy (by which I assume you mean sex, not a hug!) has made ordinary affection extremely problematic. Put your hand on the shoulder of a child and they think you are a paedophile. A girl declines sex to her new boyfriend and he says:- "I thought you loved me." Two women with no family relationship share a house together and they cannot be companions; they must be lesbians. If you haven't lost your virginity by the time you are 21, you must be abnormal. If you are holding hands in public, you must be lovers. It's a deeply destructive phenomenon we are dealing with here. However, I don't suppose you are suggesting that ALL same sex desires can be attributed to such affection / intimacy connectivities? Some folks (maybe most) experience same sex desires as a persistent expression of their sexuality continuously and well before any actual intimacy takes place (or doesn't as the case may be).
If you wish to live together in chastity and mutual friendship, then do so, no particular blessing is necessary for this for laymen."
Quite so.
Jan Sunqvist
17-08-2010, 06:09 PM
Personally I think this is where it gets interesting although a bit confusing too.
I brought up the living together in chastity scenario as a possibility to consider as these discussions sometimes get very black and white, and it looks as if the person has very few options. In theory I see no reason why this should not just - not be a problem, but it could also be a great solution to living alone. Maybe.
Here are a few more thoughts. Sexual energy and emotional energy are not the same. But it is not a coincidence they somehow get tied up together. They are qualitatively different, but the activity of one will often 'wake up' the activity of the other. Like harmonic series (notes) - you strike the fundamental and several other related frequencies above begin to vibrate with it. It is also no coincidence that people develop strange fetishes and that sexuality gets coloured by the emotional state of man. Dangerous stuff.
But I still think the focus of the discussion should be the positive aspect of things. How can sexuality be allowed to flow in non disordered ways?
I would like to recommend these writings (Celibacy, Marriage or 'free love') of Bishop Alexander Mileant on this website
http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/CMF/
I found they were very insightful, and describe a viewpoint extremely rare these days. I think they'd be prescious for our civilisation...
two small samples...
'It is exactly in the rushes of love that a soul experiences a deep need to come out of the boundaries of its own personality in order to be united with a loved one. The need for love witnesses that it is impossible to retire into oneself — all the natural limits of individuality are overcome in love, and its shell is torn apart. That is why in the rushes of love a human being starts to be burdened by himself: to retire into oneself, in the light of love, means to condemn oneself to loneliness, to find oneself in a metaphysical emptiness. That is why our soul is tirelessly looking for somebody to love in order to find a point of rest and a purpose for existence.'
'These romantic feelings possess a great creative power. They are the source of the powerful wings that lift the soul into the ideal world. Vladimir Solovyov wrote an excellent essay on this subject named "The meaning of love." After Plato’s "Feast" it is one of the most genial works in world literature dedicated to the philosophy of Eros.
The value of gender mainly consists in a longing for love that becomes the source of the "fire" that fills one’s heart. Sexuality is just the expression those internal movements produce in the bodily sphere. Since the body is the soul’s tool, sexuality only conveys and expresses the love that is burning in the soul; the body is like an instrument that through its sounds conveys the melody played by the musician.'
Father Moser, thank you for the reference to Erik Erikson. I am not familiar with his work and look forward to finding out more about it. I also want to say, I think there is a danger with looking at deeper aspects of ourselves through psychology in terms of developmental stages, because it often fails to acknowledge that deeper aspects of ourselves are a bit more mysterious, I think.
Even if one can prove that the cause of all same sex attraction is something that goes 'wrong' or undeveloped' at some stage or other, (which I think one can't because I think the 'causes' probably vary and in some way have spiritual roots, sometimes maybe even going back as far as the circumstances under which the conception takes place), it fails to take into consideration why the soul finds itself in that situation in the first place. And as we have seen from numerous psychiatric approaches, which have caused more harm then good for many 'SSA' individuals, this way of working has not been very helpful.
It is my opinion, that those methods fail because the 'solution' lies not in eliminating same sex attraction, and trying to replace it with opposite sex attraction, but in finding ways for the sexuality of the person to be 'sublimated' in spiritually beneficial ways.
How about that be the topic of discussion?
Jason H.
17-08-2010, 06:43 PM
'These romantic feelings possess a great creative power. They are the source of the powerful wings that lift the soul into the ideal world. Vladimir Solovyov wrote an excellent essay on this subject named "The meaning of love." After Plato’s "Feast" it is one of the most genial works in world literature dedicated to the philosophy of Eros.
The value of gender mainly consists in a longing for love that becomes the source of the "fire" that fills one’s heart. Sexuality is just the expression those internal movements produce in the bodily sphere. Since the body is the soul’s tool, sexuality only conveys and expresses the love that is burning in the soul; the body is like an instrument that through its sounds conveys the melody played by the musician.'
Father Moser, thank you for the reference to Erik Erikson. I am not familiar with his work and look forward to finding out more about it. I also want to say, I think there is a danger with looking at deeper aspects of ourselves through psychology in terms of developmental stages, because it often fails to acknowledge that deeper aspects of ourselves are a bit more mysterious, I think.
Even if one can prove that the cause of all same sex attraction is something that goes 'wrong' or undeveloped' at some stage or other, (which I think one can't because I think the 'causes' probably vary and in some way have spiritual roots, sometimes maybe even going back as far as the circumstances under which the conception takes place), it fails to take into consideration why the soul finds itself in that situation in the first place. And as we have seen from numerous psychiatric approaches, which have caused more harm then good for many 'SSA' individuals, this way of working has not been very helpful.
It is my opinion, that those methods fail because the 'solution' lies not in eliminating same sex attraction, and trying to replace it with opposite sex attraction, but in finding ways for the sexuality of the person to be 'sublimated' in spiritually beneficial ways.
How about that be the topic of discussion?
Jan,
In regards to your second "small sample" which I have left above in the quotes I think you miss what the Fathers and ascetics view of how the soul and body operate. The soul and body are two separate entities. The body is nothing but flesh and only seeks after worldly desires. The soul on the other hand is something that belongs to God. The soul yearns to be united with God through prayer and holiness.
Psychology is an interesting area and has a lot to offer. But one should be a trained/licensed professional to go into this subject. All I could offer would be my personal experience in dealing with psychologists/therapists.
I do agree that programs that try to make some "un-gay", I forget what they call it, and does detremental harm to some individuals. Again, I can only attest to such things through experience and stories from others who have been exposed to such "treatments."
Fr. Gregory (Hallam)
17-08-2010, 07:20 PM
Dear Jason
I think we must be careful not to stretch body and soul too far apart. Hellenistic dualism was strongly resisted by the fathers. The Church of the Old Testament laid the foundations for all of this in characterising the soul as the essence of the person ... but that essence is a psychosomatic unity. The body, through carnality, can be opposed to the spirit but body and soul are saved together in that hypostasis which is each and every human person.
Jason H.
17-08-2010, 11:58 PM
Dear Jason
I think we must be careful not to stretch body and soul too far apart. Hellenistic dualism was strongly resisted by the fathers. The Church of the Old Testament laid the foundations for all of this in characterising the soul as the essence of the person ... but that essence is a psychosomatic unity. The body, through carnality, can be opposed to the spirit but body and soul are saved together in that hypostasis which is each and every human person.
Fr. Gregory,
I went back to try and get a quote and I have no idea where I got it from. I could have sworn that I recently read something to the effect of what I said. Maybe, I'm just getting old...25 sucks
Jason H.
18-08-2010, 06:20 AM
Dear Jason
I think we must be careful not to stretch body and soul too far apart. Hellenistic dualism was strongly resisted by the fathers. The Church of the Old Testament laid the foundations for all of this in characterising the soul as the essence of the person ... but that essence is a psychosomatic unity. The body, through carnality, can be opposed to the spirit but body and soul are saved together in that hypostasis which is each and every human person.
I found it. So I'm not going insane, just yet! But here is a statement from St. John of Kronstadt in his book My Life in Christ: "In the saints we see the dominance of the spirit over the flesh, because they live by the spirit..."
The spirit, or soul, of man must overcome what the body desires. That is why we pray, to connect our spirit/soul to God when we try to fast. It is the Spirit that is over the body. For the body is just made of dust. But the Spirit was made by God.
Archimandrite Irenei
18-08-2010, 06:34 AM
Dear Jason: the body is holy and made by God, and it is not counter to salvation. Such a separation is a basic misunderstanding of the relationship of body and soul that is as old as Christianity itself (in fact, far, older), known as one of the chief tenets of 'Gnosticism': one of the first heresies systematically reacted against by the Church.
What the Fathers mean in speaking of the dominion of the spirit over the flesh is the soul's ability to convey divine order to the disordered appetites of the body, contorted by sin. But the whole aim of this is to reclaim what sin has distorted in the body, so that soul and body together live as God's creations, according to His design.
Jason H.
18-08-2010, 06:58 AM
Fr. Irenaeus,
But when Christ comes again, is not just our souls that are raised up? When we repose our bodies are left in the ground to become ash-to-ash and dust-to-dust. But the Spirit/soul is taken up to Heaven.
I'm constantly at battle over my body and spirit. My body desires worldly things while my spirit desires heavenly things.
Archimandrite Irenei
18-08-2010, 07:06 AM
Nope. The Christian faith is about resurrection: body as well as soul. Both will be eternal.
Jan Sunqvist
18-08-2010, 07:29 AM
According to the Orthodox doctrine, does disordered desire, in terms of sexuality, originate in the body or the soul?
I am not fond this question, but was wondering if there was a clear Orthodox answer...
Also if anyone wishes to respond to posts 170 and 179, I'd be very grateful.
Fr. Gregory (Hallam)
18-08-2010, 09:19 AM
Dear Jan and Jason
I was very careful in a previous post to attempt a definition of the soul in terms of the essence of the person as a psychosomatic unity .... in other words, the body is integral to the person. When we die the soul is separated from the body but at this point the resurrection has NOT come. Think of the soul here as the template of the person ... but a template that is itself animate (the body being inert) but without the fulness of life that is characterised by embodiment. However, there are some saints whose participation in the resurrection in God's eternity has already begun and this is evidenced even in the body in this life .... incorruption of certain relics testifies to this.
Much of the confusion here is generated by St. Paul's contrasting of "flesh" and "spirit". By this he does NOT mean flesh/bad, spirit/good but rather he distinguishes carnality vs. spiritual (in the sense of a healed nous / spiritual intellect with the body INCLUDED in harmonious submission to it). Once the flesh is subject to the spirit and the person is healed / saved the body is raised so as to be the embodiment of the soul in the New Creation ... the resurrection of the human person, soul AND body in the Kingdom to come.
When Christ was raised from the dead he appeared in bodily form but utterly transformed. St. Paul grapples with this in 1 Corinthians 15 in terms of a "spiritual body" but as Fr. Irenaeus has said, in no way is the body to be discarded. St. John of Kronstadt is NOT therefore suggesting that in the world to come we shall have eternal life in the soul and not the body. Flesh vs. spirit means something else entirely. In a sense it is what this thread is all about but with sexuality as a sub-theme.
Jason H.
18-08-2010, 03:17 PM
But what does exist in reality, at least at this point in time, is a lot of people who experience life long same sex attractions. I have heard an Anchorite monk say that just like tying a finger will with time atrophy it, so the passions may be starved and better controlled the longer one has them tied up.
Now here is my question, and I mean it in the best possible way. How successful is the Orthodox Church in helping people with life long celibacy? I know it's an individual matter and there may be no statistics, but in my generation (under 30) I know of a lot of people who left religion because of this very issue. (Both Orthodox and non-Orthodox) Not just that they stopped going to Church but they also developed severe 'defense mechanisms' toward it and its teachings.
On the other hand, I even heard one Orthodox person say that he is actively engaging in same sex relations and receives weekly communion, without confession, and this in a country with strong Orthodox roots. He implied he was not the only one.
So what is the practical reality for single unmarried people who time and time again fail in the goal of celibacy, whether this happens through same sex relations, self-abuse, or relations outside of marriage?
I think I understand clearly what the aim is, what I don't understand is how are those that have lost hope and will in striving for this aim, helped spiritually to regain hope, to be able to see that this goal is realistically possible for everyone who wishes to struggle.
Jan,
I'll make an attempt to try and answer this question.
I don't think that the Orthodox Church keeps tallies on how many people are succesful in keeping a life of celibacy. I do not doubt that there are people who live in the world who are able to do this, probably through much guidance, prayer, and obedience. But to accurately know who is doing what is between a person and their confessor or God. I am in the same generation as you are and grew up where physical intimacy was no longer a hush-hush issue. Heck, the earliest memory I can recall of talking about such things with friends was when I was in 8th grade! In the area I grew up in, Southern US aka Biblebelt, people never really abandoned religion, they just ignored what was being preached and did as they chose.
As to the person who is receiving Communion while engaging in sexual intimacy without confession, traditionally it's a major no-no, one should always be in a state of spiritual purity and contrition. However, one cannot judge what is in that person's heart, only God can see that.
The practical reality for single people is that we are all sinners and will at times "miss the mark." Though we are called to holiness it takes much discipline, prayer, vigils, obedience.
Fr Raphael Vereshack
18-08-2010, 03:39 PM
There is a fascinating discussion by St Augustine in his City of God Book XIII chaps 20-24 much of it involving an exegesis of I Cor 15 in relation to the body.
Here are excerpts although the whole section is well worth a thorough read.
Chapter 20.— That the Flesh Now Resting in Peace Shall Be Raised to a Perfection Not Enjoyed by the Flesh of Our First Parents.
Thus the souls of departed saints are not affected by the death which dismisses them from their bodies, because their flesh rests in hope, no matter what indignities it receives after sensation is gone. For they do not desire that their bodies be forgotten, as Plato thinks fit, but rather, because they remember what has been promised by Him who deceives no man, and who gave them security for the safe keeping even of the hairs of their head, they with a longing patience wait in hope of the resurrection of their bodies, in which they have suffered many hardships, and are now to suffer never again. For if they did not "hate their own flesh," when it, with its native infirmity, opposed their will, and had to be constrained by the spiritual law, how much more shall they love it, when it shall even itself have become spiritual! For as, when the spirit serves the flesh, it is fitly called carnal, so, when the flesh serves the spirit, it will justly be called spiritual. Not that it is converted into spirit, as some fancy from the words, "It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption," 1 Corinthians 15:42 but because it is subject to the spirit with a perfect and marvellous readiness of obedience, and responds in all things to the will that has entered on immortality— all reluctance, all corruption, and all slowness being removed. For the body will not only be better than it was here in its best estate of health, but it will surpass the bodies of our first parents ere they sinned. For, though they were not to die unless they should sin, yet they used food as men do now, their bodies not being as yet spiritual, but animal only. And though they decayed not with years, nor drew nearer to death—a condition secured to them in God's marvellous grace by the tree of life, which grew along with the forbidden tree in the midst of Paradise,— yet they took other nourishment, though not of that one tree, which was interdicted not because it was itself bad, but for the sake of commending a pure and simple obedience, which is the great virtue of the rational creature set under the Creator as his Lord. For, though no evil thing was touched, yet if a thing forbidden was touched, the very disobedience was sin. They were, then, nourished by other fruit, which they took that their animal bodies might not suffer the discomfort of hunger or thirst; but they tasted the tree of life, that death might not steal upon them from any quarter, and that they might not, spent with age, decay. Other fruits were, so to speak, their nourishment, but this their sacrament. So that the tree of life would seem to have been in the terrestrial Paradise what the wisdom of God is in the spiritual, of which it is written, "She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her." Proverbs 3:18
Chapter 23.— What We are to Understand by the Animal and Spiritual Body; Or of Those Who Die in Adam, And of Those Who are Made Alive in Christ.
Thus the apostle states that the first man was made in an animal body. For, wishing to distinguish the animal body which now is from the spiritual, which is to be in the resurrection, he says, "It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption: it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power: it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." Then, to prove this, he goes on, "There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." And to show what the animated body is, he says, "Thus it was written, The first man Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." 1 Corinthians 15:42-45 He wished thus to show what the animated body is, though Scripture did not say of the first man Adam, when his soul was created by the breath of God, "Man was made in an animated body," but "Man was made a living soul." Genesis 2:7 By these words, therefore, "The first man was made a living soul," the apostle wishes man's animated body to be understood. But how he wishes the spiritual body to be understood he shows when he adds, "But the last Adam was made a quickening spirit," plainly referring to Christ, who has so risen from the dead that He cannot die any more. He then goes on to say, "But that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual." And here he much more clearly asserts that he referred to the animal body when he said that the first man was made a living soul, and to the spiritual when he said that the last man was made a quickening spirit. The animal body is the first, being such as the first Adam had, and which would not have died had he not sinned, being such also as we now have, its nature being changed and vitiated by sin to the extent of bringing us under the necessity of death, and being such as even Christ condescended first of all to assume, not indeed of necessity, but of choice; but afterwards comes the spiritual body, which already is worn by anticipation by Christ as our head, and will be worn by His members in the resurrection of the dead.
Then the apostle subjoins a notable difference between these two men, saying, "The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy, and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." 1 Corinthians 15:47-49 So he elsewhere says, "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ;" Galatians 3:27 but in very deed this shall be accomplished when that which is animal in us by our birth shall have become spiritual in our resurrection. For, to use his words again, We are saved by hope. Romans 8:24 Now we bear the image of the earthly man by the propagation of sin and death, which pass on us by ordinary generation; but we bear the image of the heavenly by the grace of pardon and life eternal, which regeneration confers upon us through the Mediator of God and men, the Man Christ Jesus. And He is the heavenly Man of Paul's passage, because He came from heaven to be clothed with a body of earthly mortality, that He might clothe it with heavenly immortality. And he calls others heavenly, because by grace they become His members, that, together with them, He may become one Christ, as head and body. In the same epistle he puts this yet more clearly: "Since by man came death, by Man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive," 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 — that is to say, in a spiritual body which shall be made a quickening spirit. Not that all who die in Adam shall be members of Christ—for the great majority shall be punished in eternal death—but he uses the word "all" in both clauses, because, as no one dies in an animal body except in Adam, so no one is quickened a spiritual body save in Christ. We are not, then, by any means to suppose that we shall in the resurrection have such a body as the first man had before he sinned, nor that the words, "As is the earthy such are they also that are earthy," are to be understood of that which was brought about by sin; for we are not to think that Adam had a spiritual body before he fell, and that, in punishment of his sin, it was changed into an animal body. If this be thought, small heed has been given to the words of so great a teacher, who says, "There is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body; as it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul." Was it after sin he was made so? Or was not this the primal condition of man from which the blessed apostle selects his testimony to show what the animal body is?
Chapter 24.— How We Must Understand that Breathing of God by Which "The First Man Was Made a Living Soul," And that Also by Which the Lord Conveyed His Spirit to His Disciples When He Said, "Receive the Holy Ghost."
There is no ground, then, for our objecting, when the apostle so expressly distinguishes the animal body from the spiritual— that is to say, the body in which we now are from that in which we are to be. He says, "It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." 1 Corinthians 15:44-49 Of all which words of his we have previously spoken. The animal body, accordingly, in which the apostle says that the first man Adam was made, was not so made that it could not die at all, but so that it should not die unless he should have sinned. That body, indeed, which shall be made spiritual and immortal by the quickening Spirit shall not be able to die at all; as the soul has been created immortal, and therefore, although by sin it may be said to die, and does lose a certain life of its own, namely, the Spirit of God, by whom it was enabled to live wisely and blessedly, yet it does not cease living a kind of life, though a miserable, because it is immortal by creation. So, too, the rebellious angels, though by sinning they did in a sense die, because they forsook God, the Fountain of life, which while they drank they were able to live wisely and well, yet they could not so die as to utterly cease living and feeling, for they are immortals by creation. And so, after the final judgment, they shall be hurled into the second death, and not even there be deprived of life or of sensation, but shall suffer torment. But those men who have been embraced by God's grace, and have become the fellow citizens of the holy angels who have continued in bliss, shall never more either sin or die, being endued with spiritual bodies; yet, being clothed with immortality, such as the angels enjoy, of which they cannot be divested even by sinning, the nature of their flesh shall continue the same, but all carnal corruption and unwieldiness shall be removed.
Father, your blessing:
I'm struggling with the passage in which St. Augustine asserts that "as no one dies in an animal body except in Adam, so no one is quickened a spiritual body save in Christ." What bodies, then, are taken up by those who are resurrected unto condemnation? How are they raised to, as it were, "get what's coming to them?"
In Christ,
Evan
Jan Sunqvist
18-08-2010, 05:16 PM
thank you! it will take me some time to process what is being said.
So would it be correct to say that disordered desire comes from the lack of a proper relationship between them - body in submission to the soul/spirit? What is the distinction between soul and Spirit?
Fr. Gregory (Hallam)
18-08-2010, 06:17 PM
Dear Evan
The resurrection is universal and applies to the saved and damned alike, (John 5:29, Acts 24:15). The distinction is between those who spend eternal life in heaven and those who languish eternally in hell. Those in hell are experiencing the Love of God as a fire stoked by their passions and instigated by the devil. Those in heaven experience the Love of God as deified bliss, instigated by faith working through love. However, the ontological state of the resurrected person is identical in both. The condition of the soul is what marks them apart, fixed as by a great gulf. Yet, even so, we must pray all shall be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth, even if we cannot CLAIM that for sure.
Dear Jan
Flesh in submission to Spirit? Yes. The distinction between soul and spirit in humankind (all lower case) is the contrast between the essence of the whole person (fully alive as embodied) and the spirit as that which plumbs the depth of what a man is .... it is that which is malleable and thereby conditions the soul .... by this means, choices are made and consequences are reaped.
Jason H.
18-08-2010, 06:31 PM
So, Fr. Gregory, the soul, obviously, is what God gave us that needs to be saved, and it is done through the spirit which God bestows on people?
Fr. Gregory (Hallam)
18-08-2010, 06:37 PM
Dear Jason
So long as we remember that the soul is the essence of the whole person ... and that includes the body. The soul cannot function properly in respect of personhood until it is clothed in flesh .... and in the context of our salvation hope that is the spiritual body of the resurrection.
Father David Moser
18-08-2010, 07:36 PM
So, Fr. Gregory, the soul, obviously, is what God gave us that needs to be saved, and it is done through the spirit which God bestows on people?
No, to say this brings much to great a division between body and soul. Both body and soul need to be saved, not one or the other. Both are saved by grace which is defined by many of the fathers as the divine energy and this is given to us by the Holy Spirit. Our spirit is that aspect of the soul which makes us immortal, which connects us with God. You seem to really want to separate soul and body in your comments, but you cannot - we were created with both and they are joined into a single undivided whole just in the same way that one cannot separate the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ. The separation of the soul and body at physical death is an unnatural event brought about by our sin. But we are created and saved and judged not as one or the other, but only as a complete being comprised of an immortal soul and a body.
Fr David Moser
Fr. Gregory (Hallam)
18-08-2010, 09:24 PM
Amen to that Father!
Jason H.
18-08-2010, 10:02 PM
I was just trying to get a grasp of something that I really didn't know much about or how to address it.
Fr. Gregory (Hallam)
18-08-2010, 10:11 PM
No problem Jason ... if you don't ask / discuss, you don't find out. I have found to be true myself in Orthodoxy that one needs continually to re-evaluate what is assumed to be true but indeed may not be.
Daniel Williamson
18-08-2010, 11:53 PM
From the funeral service (Hapgood).
Woe is me! What manner of ordeal doth the soul endure when from the body it is parted! Woe is me! How many then are its tears; and there is none to show compassion! It turneth its eyes to the Angels; all unavailing is its prayer. It stretcheth out its hands to men; and findeth none to succour. Wherefore, my brethren beloved, meditating on the brevity of our life, let us beseech of Christ rest for him (her) who hath departed hence: and for our souls great mercy.
Fr Raphael Vereshack
19-08-2010, 03:10 PM
Father, your blessing:
I'm struggling with the passage in which St. Augustine asserts that "as no one dies in an animal body except in Adam, so no one is quickened a spiritual body save in Christ." What bodies, then, are taken up by those who are resurrected unto condemnation? How are they raised to, as it were, "get what's coming to them?"
In Christ,
Evan
Dear Evan,
I have not gotten to that part of the City of God yet to be able to say exactly what St Augustine will present about this.
But I think that it is safe to say, from all his previous points, that he will say that for those condemned, the body suffers eternally as a result of the conscious choice of the soul against the light of Christ.
In St Augustine there is a very strong teaching on the crucial importance of choice; and of its effects on us on all levels: spiritual and physical.
For those who wonder about these things, St Augustine spends considerable time in the City of God, defending the full reality and integrity of the body (the direct context is an apology vs Platonic understandings of the relationship between soul & body), and that it is fully taken up and transfigured (St Augustine though uses expressions like 'spiritualised without losing material integrity'), within the life in Christ.
Possibly this is why St Augustine makes the distinction between the body in Paradise and in the heavenly/final state. He clearly says that the body in Paradise could have died in the natural sense if it did not reach out for material sustenance; so that by turning away from God's commandments in disobedience while in Paradise, Adam & Eve reveal their dependent state on God, both spiritually & materially. I can't find a more full explanation of this yet in City of God (but I'm only half way through the book) but one aspect of this could be St Augustine's continual insistence on the dependent nature of created human nature in terms of God. Since it comes from nothing, creation falls into nothing if it does not reach out to its Creator. This is it's inherent tendency and not just a penalty for disobedience against God.
In other words St Augustine sees God's providence at work in a strongly cosmological and historical sense; that God's providence leads man (and creation with man) from the inherent instability (and then consequent disobedience from choice) of his nature, to an abiding state of incorruptibility in contemplation of God. This of course affects the whole being of man, body and soul. Underneath such a vision though is a continual preoccupation by St Augustine of man's instability and of how this can only be healed through Christ. St Augustine sets this healing within the largest possible cosmic scenario. But it seems that this question- of man's instability- preoccupied St Augustine for his entire life, and that it was a central and motivating question for him, probably on the personal as well as pastoral and theological level.
By the way- a few months ago I referred to the suggestion by an Orthodox writer (maybe Fr Georges Florovsky- I can't remember) that St Maximus the Confessor read St Augustine while in exile. There is unlikely to be a certain way to ever verify this. But in the City of God there are many main themes that are very similar to those of St Maximus; especially on the role of will and cosmology.
In Christ- Fr Raphael
Jan Sunqvist
19-08-2010, 05:24 PM
Dear Fr Vereshack,
thank you for the St Augustine writings. I am pretty sure I am getting off topic, but I am wondering on what basis does an Orthodox person discern a certain point of view or revelation.
I mean, for example recently, Fr Gregory pointed the following out in a previous post about St. Augustine,
BTW, "lust" is not the same as sexual excitation. This is the error the west fell into after Augustine in which it was generally thought that only sex without excitation (invariably thought to be the same as lust) was without taint of sin. Attraction, desire, coitus and orgasm without excitation; what a ridiculous idea! No, God created sexual excitation as a good thing. Even when anything beyond attraction is inappropriate (or just plain sinful; ie lust) attraction remains without sin IF IT STOPS AT ATTRACTION. Also, I do not know anybody (including myself) who can live without experiencing reflexive attraction. God made people beautiful for a reason. Lust, then is the desire trajectory beyond attraction to orgasm with or without coitus.
Now, I am not sure Fr Vereshack you would agree with this having written in post # 105
'Another way of putting this then as a very serious question is: as innate to 'same sex attraction'- are we always referring to something sensual? If so- and it seems it most always is meant in this way- then it is a serious problem by any Church understanding.'
I agree with this former criticism because I do feel I have some insight about this which to me supports the view that 'lust' and sexual 'excitation' need not be the same thing. To me lust, always affects the nous, and a heart in a certain 'restrictive' way, sexual attraction does not always have the same effect, although it often leads to it, if one does not in some way 'redirect' the energy so to speak. In any case, this is my opinion, based on my experience, but I always try to be open to the possibility that my view may not be correct, and that I may need to reconsider when an opposing view is brought forth, particularly if coming from a source I respect. However, I see no way of dropping that view (when it's based on (possibly partial) experience, to accept a dogma just because it comes from a respectable source. This is also something I am struggling with. It's partly pride in my own opinions, partly wish to pursue truth, accepting the possibility that even a saint may say things which are off mark. My apologies if I've offended anyone.
With the last topic, Augustine's view of body and soul in salvation, I can't say I have insight, nor do his words touch my heart like the words from the Gospels do. So it is possible for me to accept Augustine's dogma as a possibility, if it is coming from and supported by the Holy Tradition. This has probably been discussed elsewhere, but where is generally the line where questioning and even disagreement is acceptable for an Orthodox, even when it is a disagreement with someone who is acting in the role of one's spiritual guide?
Fr. Gregory (Hallam)
19-08-2010, 06:17 PM
Dear Jan
I would distinguish attraction from excitation. Excitation is when a thought becomes impassioned. If that is outside marriage then continence, vigilance and transformation is necessary ... not so as to deny the sexual energy but so as to direct the eros of it towards dispassionate affection and self giving love.
Augustine admitted the possibility that concupiscence / libido in a pure form might have existed between Adam and Eve before the Fall but he generally accounted for the transmission of orginal sin in terms of the fallen aspect of concupiscence in relation to sex. Later interpreters of Augustine (but interestingly, not Anselm) .... notably the reformers, equated original sin with concupiscence. To what extent Augustine can be implicated in the legacy of this doctrine in the west and its baleful inability to distinguish lust from sexual pleasure is open to debate.
The Slav tradition generally has a much more measured and qualified approach to Augustine than the Greek referring to bis blessedness rather than his sainthood. I believe (although I may be wrong) that the Church of Greece did not include St. Augustine as a glorified saint in their calendars untilo the 20th century. There is much good in St. Augustine but there are some aspects of his teaching that are more dubious, or contentious at least.
So, this is an example where there are differing views amongst the Orthodox ... but this is quite commonplace on issues that are still subject to debate. Informed persons may offer different theologumena or pious opinions / theological perspectives. We are not monolithic!
Jason H.
19-08-2010, 06:35 PM
I am not a fan of Augustine. I read the City of God and did not find much insight to it.
Fr. Gregory (Hallam)
19-08-2010, 09:13 PM
We have to remember that he wrote it towards the end of his life when the church was collapsing around his ears as the barbarians laid west to the west (and this included a backwash into north Africa); hence the strong contrast between the cities of men and the City of God.
Michael Astley
19-08-2010, 10:05 PM
Wow. I found reading this thread quite disheartening.
It isn't for nothing that I left the thread as abruptly as I did last time, and can't bring myself to participate again, although things do seem to have got better.
M
Fr Raphael Vereshack
19-08-2010, 11:50 PM
Jan Sunqvist wrote:
Dear Fr Vereshack,
thank you for the St Augustine writings. I am pretty sure I am getting off topic, but I am wondering on what basis does an Orthodox person discern a certain point of view or revelation.
I mean, for example recently, Fr Gregory pointed the following out in a previous post about St. Augustine,
Quotation Originally Posted by Fr. Gregory (Hallam)
BTW, "lust" is not the same as sexual excitation. This is the error the west fell into after Augustine in which it was generally thought that only sex without excitation (invariably thought to be the same as lust) was without taint of sin. Attraction, desire, coitus and orgasm without excitation; what a ridiculous idea! No, God created sexual excitation as a good thing. Even when anything beyond attraction is inappropriate (or just plain sinful; ie lust) attraction remains without sin IF IT STOPS AT ATTRACTION. Also, I do not know anybody (including myself) who can live without experiencing reflexive attraction. God made people beautiful for a reason. Lust, then is the desire trajectory beyond attraction to orgasm with or without coitus.
Now, I am not sure Fr Vereshack you would agree with this having written in post # 105
'Another way of putting this then as a very serious question is: as innate to 'same sex attraction'- are we always referring to something sensual? If so- and it seems it most always is meant in this way- then it is a serious problem by any Church understanding.'
With respect, I would say that the views we often hear criticized concerning St Augustine and sexuality, if in fact they ever were current in the form we describe them, date from the Medieval and not the earlier Patristic period (ie St Augustine was current 4th- 5thcs). For example do we find such views with St Gregory the Great (Dialogos) who certainly knew the writings and thought of St Augustine? Or the extensive writings of the Venerable Bede which include scriptural commentaries which rely on St Augustine to a considerable extent. However I question whether such views (ie sexuality without excitation) were ever meant or conveyed in such terms by any Father east or west or even in the later Medieval west ( I will leave the latter to verify or not, to those better trained than I; all I know is that the west was never one bloc of thought).
In any case, I do not see how there can be sexuality without excitation. If this is something taught by the Fathers, I have not come across it so far in either eastern or western Fathers. I would ask that quotes be supplied. For in such cases it is very common to misinterpret what is actually being said. Thus to urge chastity among even the married does not necessarily equate to total abstention nor to sexuality without excitation. Rather it refers to a measure of self control which can occur ( rather should occur) especially among those married.
But now to look at this the other way around from our modern context. To me at least, the argument about sexuality and excitation actually seeks to focus on the question of the behaviour we wish to justify. Sexuality it is said, is inherent in the sense of attraction; therefore excitation on some level is also inherent. This at least is how I hear the argument presented both within and outside of the Church. Perhaps, so the argument goes, the 'acting out' is wrong; but the underlying urge is part of my inner make up, and essential to what I am. This however is like allowing the horse to appear, but then trying to stop it from running around outside. Mistaking what is actually a passion for an inherent desire, we justify something coming into our heart which actually is a passion. In terms of not allowing oneself to act out, perhaps something may be said for this. But by justifying what is in our heart- an actual passion- we come close to negating any good involved in the act of self denial. For in fact it no longer is a struggle against passion as the ascetic Fathers understand this; in other words it is no longer a struggle against the roots of the passions which begin with the impulses and desires of the heart. Apart from questioning which human being could ever accomplish such a task (ie allow the roots of passion but don't act on them- isn't it cruel in a way to urge this on someone from a pastoral point of view?) this approach also puts in question whether we are actually redeeming this passion in any sense at all.
In Christ- Fr Raphael
Fr. Gregory (Hallam)
20-08-2010, 01:40 AM
Let's get even more basic. What is a "passion" .... we all think we know, but do we? We could say that passions have the quality of evil about them ... and we would be right. But let us recall that evil is the absence of good (Augustine) or one could say the prideful energised distortion of something that is good.
So, what of lust? Yes, a passion ... but what is its corresponding "good." I propose, (at least in so far as I understand the Fathers generally), that this is an "eros" which spends itself, stands out of itself (in the technical sense of ek-stasis) FOR ANOTHER.
What turns eros (good) into evil (lust) is the redirection of affective energy (including the sexual) from the other AS SUBJECT into oneself ... and, therefore, the other as OBJECT ... to be sacrificed on the altar of my own pleasure.
Those who are married can practice eros WITH excitation provided that it is sacrificially for the other. Hence sexual love in marriage is supposed to be exciting in that it fulfils the other and in that ekstasis, there is the possibility of new life ... but it is still a dying to self for all that.
In the celibate life or long term single state ... and therefore, chaste life ... eros is much the same in that it is for the other but without the unitive dimension of sexuality which is the physico-spiritual-reproductive aspect of sex itself. Self giving love in this case transforms ... or rather channels sexual energy into genuine, self expending affection, which is the handmade of agape.
Without such eros, agape would have no inner drive for its complete. Sacrifice would remain "a nice idea" but not a self expending ekstasis ... an ability FOR THE OTHER to transcend one's own selfhood, in essence a readiness to die for the other. And so we are brought to the foot of the cross and the empty tomb ... and in the first instance of God's eros, the Incarnation.
Archimandrite Irenei
20-08-2010, 01:44 AM
Father: a passion is a technical term in the fathers, for any activity of man's facultative powers that renders the person passive agent (hence pathos, passio, 'passivity') controlled by a faculty of will, rather than in control of it. It is not necessarily self-based or self-centred, since, for example, even positive and other-orientated willing can become enslaving and thus a passion.
Fr. Gregory (Hallam)
20-08-2010, 01:54 AM
I would argue Father that it is the self-orientation that renders the person passively subject ... and not the other way round. Why would one become a passive captive agent of a faculty if the will had not first been turned inward to the self where it became a slave of self serving desires? BTW ... an other-directed positive willing can never become enslaving precisely because it desires the OTHER'S highest good and not its own. Its own could indeed be a crippling pride in its achievements ... but then it would not be wholly other-regarding.
(Going to bed now ... will check this tomorrow).
Archimandrite Irenei
20-08-2010, 02:03 AM
It is quite clear, both in pastoral experience as well as in the 'science' of the heart in the Fathers, that an 'other-directed' willing can become passionate -- and in fact often does. We must conflate passion and self-will. They are (very often) interconnected, but they are not one and the same.
Jan Sunqvist
20-08-2010, 02:34 AM
First, if I may make a disclaimer - I am not well read in Patristic writing but I do hope to become more acquainted soon... so please take everything I say with a grain of salt... in fact as this thread came up in my thoughts today, I thought it quite strange that I keep on writing about a subject I understand so little about
Fr Gregory wrote earlier
'If that is outside marriage then continence, vigilance and transformation is necessary ... not so as to deny the sexual energy but so as to direct the eros of it towards dispassionate affection and self giving love.'
I don't know if this view is supported by Patristic writing, but I am much inclined to agree with it. It speaks to me.
At the same time, I think I understand what Fr Vereshack, you are trying to say. Perhaps we are also dealing with terms, the subtle meaning of which we may not be fully agreeing on. (also yes I apologise, 'excitation' is not the word I should have used, but I didn't mean it 'excitation' in the sense of lust - more in the sense of sexual energy making itself 'apparent' to oneself')
There is a view, and again I am not sure how supported it is by the Fathers, but there is a view that sexual energy is created by the body. Not just the physical substances of reproduction, but the energy of sex that is depleted during (outward)sexual activity. Many traditions deal with this. One may not need to go far into the study of Taoism for example and the related traditions of Chinese medicine and Qigong to find this view. Also, for example, famous scientists and artists have said that they found through experience that they were fully on top of their game only at times they were abstinent... Another example, please my apologies for being frank... many people will easily testify that when they go without sex for a certain length of time, they start feeling 'wired' etc. I guess these would be in support of the view that there is such an energy as sexual energy... But again, could this just be another 'misnomer' from the Orthodox Christian language?
So if one accepts the existence of this naturally produced energy, then it seems obvious that one need not condemn it for existing, what seems the issue is the 'disordered' expression of it - passion (again I am no expert, but am I correct in saying that passion is an issue because it narrows one's awareness of everything but the object of the passion in that moment, allowing the animal nature (if you will the reptilian part of the brain btw the part responsible for addictions...) or body to be in control of the soul, therefore reinforcing our fallen nature - (is that formulation acceptable??)
Well, the reason I continue with this discussion is mainly because I am still interested in how the Church can help an individual to bring about that proper relationship - (body in submission) when it comes to the question of sex. In particular for the unmarried and living in the world, whoever they are attracted to.
I think some of the folks I mentioned earlier who developed 'defense mechanisms' against religion, feel that their sexual identity (here I mean it in the broadest sense, maybe even spiritual sense as a kind of longing, but again maybe it's a 'disordered' or 'displaced' longing...) is denied when someone gives them guidance based on logic and interpreted dogma as supposed to real insight into what would truly help the individual.
I enjoyed reading the posts and participating in the thread, and I am grateful to all for the input, but I am also feeling that this exchange is not quite answering my questions . I am not quite sure myself what kind of answers I was hoping for, I suppose something that would be practically helpful with this topic.
Jan Sunqvist
20-08-2010, 02:58 AM
I just read Fr Gregory's post #208 after having written my last one... I think he put it much better than I did...
Jan Sunqvist
20-08-2010, 04:32 AM
But there is another question now that's making me want to pull my hair out...
Fr Gregory, why does 'eros' in some people 'come alive' for the same sex? In fact, why is eros then polarized at all toward one sex or the other??? Is 'eros' then a reflection of body's needs or soul's needs, or maybe uhm... psyche? (I do dislike this question very much, but dont know how else to put it) Is there an equivalent in Orthodox Christianity for the concept of psyche? What is the best term here? Also what of those who claim they always felt they should have been born the other sex, many of who are actually still attracted to the opposite sex???
Please help, I just created a muddle for myself, and actually to the OP asking if people are born gay, I say, I have noooooo idea!!!
again this is what it comes to for me with this thread,
I enjoyed reading the posts and participating in the thread, and I am grateful to all for the input, but I am also feeling that this exchange is not quite answering my questions . I am not quite sure myself what kind of answers I was hoping for, I suppose something that would be practically helpful with this topic. (celibacy/eros toward agape)
Daniel Williamson
20-08-2010, 05:00 AM
But there is another question now that's making me want to pull my hair out...
Fr Gregory, why does 'eros' in some people 'come alive' for the same sex? In fact, why is eros then polarized at all toward one sex or the other??? Is 'eros' then a reflection of body's needs or soul's needs, or maybe uhm... psyche? Is there an equivalent in Orthodox Christianity for the concept of psyche? What is the best term here? Also what of those who claim they always felt they should have been born the other sex, many of who are actually still attracted to the opposite sex???
Please help, I just created a muddle for myself, and actually to the OP asking if people are born gay, I say, I have noooooo idea!!!
Hi Jan;
I believe the whole interpretation behind this question is flawed. No one knows the dynamics behind generational sin. It is outlandish to think that some may be born with a sinful disposition towards such actions? I don't think so. Just look at another fallen characteristic some are born with: addiction and abuse. Nonetheless, it really is no place for us to contemplate why someone may have a disposition towards sin but rather what are the steps necessary for their cure.
Here is some terminology that may help.
Dianoia: This is often translated as "mind‟ or "reason‟ and is the discursive, conceptualizing and logical faculty of conscious thinking and cognition. Dianoia draws conclusions and / or formulates concepts deriving from data provided either by revelation, spiritual knowledge, or sense-observation. This knowledge is consequently of a lower order than spiritual knowledge and does not imply perception of the principles or energies of created-beings, and still less, of Divine truth and / or Energies. Such perception, which is the function of the nous, is beyond the scope of dianoia(Nahum, 2001).
Hamartia: Translated, "sin‟, this is more precisely a sin-prone state or condition. Hamartia is the deprivation of God‟s uncreated Energies, and therefore of enosis. This deprivation leads to phthora or physical decay. Hamartia is reflected in the darkening of the nous. When the nous departs from the heart, it ceases to have remembrance of God, and is distracted to creation through the senses, and lives in sin. This distraction is manifested in actions that are called "willed‟ sin (George, 2006; St. Nikodemos & St. Makarios, 1983).
Hamartema: This refers to a "willed‟ distraction, sin, moral corruption, or wickedness. Hamartema is the result of / and at the same time leads to hamartía, but only the former has guilt. The non-volitional character of hamartia is evident in the way Sophocles used the word to refer to Oedipous‟ "tragic flaw‟(Thayer, 1963; Vlachos, 1993).
Logiki: This is "reason‟, or the power of the psyche through which the surrounding world is perceived and through which the psyche relates to the world. Experience of God is acquired by means of the nous and this experience is formulated apophatically, when necessary, by means of reason, in so far as it is attainable (Florensky, 1997; St. Nikodemos & St. Makarios, 1983; Vlachos, 1993).
Nous: Sometimes translated as "intellect‟, "mind‟, or the "eye of the heart‟, this is the intuitive insight or perception of mysteries beyond and higher than reason, through which, upon purification, wo/man can see the inner essences of created things and, the uncreated Light, by means of direct spiritual perception. The nous therefore, is the energy of transcendent insight or transcendent apperception, which is the common mode of reasoning among angelic beings. Unlike the dianoia, from which the nous must be carefully distinguished, the nous does not function through the formulation of abstract concepts or theories and does not arrive at conclusions through deductive reasoning, but rather understands Divine truth by means of immediate experience, intuition, or simple cognition. The nous dwells in the depths of the psyche. It constitutes the innermost aspect of the heart and is the organ of contemplation and the "eye of the heart‟ (George, 2006). The term is often used by the Holy Fathers with several meanings. The nous is referred to as the "spiritual nature‟ of a wo/man and the heart or "the essence of the soul‟ (St. Nikodemos & St. Makarios, 1983). More specifically, it constitutes the innermost aspect of the heart. The nous is also referred to as the "eye of the soul‟ (St. John of Damascus, 1979) or "the organ of theoria‟, which is engaged in pure prayer‟ (Meyendorff, 1979). The energy of the nous is often called "a power of the psyche‟ (St. Gregory of Sinai, 1995). However, it is more commonly known as the energy of the psyche, and the heart is known as the essence of the psyche (George, 2006; Vlachos, 1993; 1997).
Jan Sunqvist
20-08-2010, 05:07 AM
Nonetheless, it really is no place for us to contemplate why someone may have a disposition towards sin but rather what are the steps necessary for their cure.
At this moment, I couldn't agree more.
...and thank you for the terms!
Daniel Williamson
20-08-2010, 07:48 AM
I wish to make clear my comments are not in regards to the many insightful post from various fathers, brothers, and sisters. Rather, the original question and the way it is framed.
To insuate God would create someone with a certain sinful predisposition is heresy and blasphemy, not to mention a total negation of free will. Every fallen and evil influence we communally suffer can only be blamed on ourselves for turning our backs to God.
In Orthodoxy, there are some wonderful writings on generational sin. Unlike the Roman Catholics, I am not personally responsible for (hypothetically) mom & dads, grandpa and grandmas and on unto the fourth generation, sinful godless life but I sure have to deal with the consequences.
Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. (Exodus 34:7)
This is why one of the duties of an Orthodox Christian is to clean up his / her generation and pass on a more godly life to your children. No matter what the crosses each one of us bares those chains can be broken and the burden can be light with a life in the Church through our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ!
Fr. Gregory (Hallam)
20-08-2010, 08:47 AM
Dear Fr. Irenaeus
t is quite clear, both in pastoral experience as well as in the 'science' of the heart in the Fathers, that an 'other-directed' willing can become passionate -- and in fact often does. We must conflate passion and self-will. They are (very often) interconnected, but they are not one and the same.
From the sense of your sentence I assume you mean NOT to conflate passion and self will.
You misunderstand what I am saying. I am not conflating passion and self will where passion and self will are as YOU have defined them.
I was brought up in a family where "other directed will" was certainly impassioned and which was extremely damaging (had I not dealt with this then and subsequently). Disinterested (in the same sense of passionless love) is not AT SOURCE simply a matter of the will. Doubtless the person I am talking about genuinely believed that she or he was acting for my highest good.
Such passions often occur when there is an unequal power relationship between persons. I am all too aware, not only pastorally as a priest, but also directly and personally as a son of the truth of what you say. That is not my point.
I am saying that the problem starts in the heart which is either crucified (so that Christ may dwell within) or it is not. The way I articulated this might have been deficient so allow me to clarify.
It is only when the heart is examined that passions may be unmasked and transformed. An outward directed will seeking the highest good of the other radically depends on that self-dying rebirth. Captivity to the passions as a passive agent is an EFFECT of this cause. The way you defined it I am afraid (although this was probably not what you intended in a simple textual analysis) suggested a merely theoretical notion of passivity. If there is disinterested unconditional love manifested as a dying that others might live (which is how I understand seeking someone else's highest good) then this is evidence that the heart is being healed, ("by their fruits you shall know them."). If an other-directed will, no matter how apparently virtuously inclined, does not proceed from such a heart then there is a gross contamination of "love." One sees this in all sorts of abusive relationships.
Secularism thinks it can deal with this through education and behavioural modification. These techniques fail again and again. It can only be healed by metanoia (in the most comprehensive sense of that word).
Fr. Gregory (Hallam)
20-08-2010, 09:02 AM
Dear Fr. Deacon Daniel
Thank you for your most helpful analysis. Clearly God does not create anything opposed to Himself.
Dear Jan
Your question about sexual energy and abstinence (fasting) is most timely. The way you have characterised the effect of such fasting is helpful. There is a praxis in the Orthodox Church that couples refrain from sex during Great Lent. Not all do of course but the practice makes sense in the terms we have (mostly) all been sharing here. Sexual energy per se is not bad ... it only becomes "bad" when the heart is inclined to itself and not God. I am not sure I understand though what your remaining issues or questions are.
Daniel Williamson
20-08-2010, 09:17 AM
Dear Fr. Gregory,
I have a book would like to recommend to you. It is academic and pricy but incredible. I believe it is now a textbook at Institute for Orthodox Christian Studies (IOCS) Cambridge, UK It is written by my spiritual father: The Right Reverend Dr. Andrew (Vujisić)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d.html/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/182-8181907-2271265?a=3639224280
This controlled study of Eastern Orthodox spiritual intervention in the treatment of depression and anxiety, conducted in an empirical manner, is a benchmark in the scientific examination of Orthodox psychotherapy and a pioneering step in a new area of practical and applied theology. With increased attention by scholars to the relationship between spirituality and science, religion and physical / mental health, and holistic views of the human being that bring together the body and the mind, or spirit, this book provides a framework in the establishment of cross-cultural dimensions to the study of science and spirituality and the holistic concept of humans and their environment. These dimensions are indispensable in the development of any global notion of research in science and religion.
Fr. Gregory (Hallam)
20-08-2010, 09:31 AM
Can you sketch briefly its contents please? It's a lot of dosh!
Daniel Williamson
20-08-2010, 06:14 PM
Can you sketch briefly its contents please? It's a lot of dosh!
Greetings Fr. Gregory,
This book is one of The Right Reverend Dr. Andrew (Vujisić) dissertations. If you enjoyed:
ORTHODOX PSYCHOTHERAPY
Metr. Hierotheos S. Vlachos
You will find this study to be extremely informative and complementary. I believe this study is the first of its kind performed according to modern academic standards.
Information about the: author (http://www.orthodoxtheologicalinstitute.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=59&Itemid=77)
Below is the thesis:
1.5 Thesis Statement In this study, it was theorized that the techniques, i.e., fasting, prayer, physical postures, etc., used in the neptic-psychotherapeutic method of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church would reduce the intensity of self-reported depressive symptomatology and comorbid anxiety among the participants of the study, regardless of their religious affiliation, thereby signifying the universal and intrinsic efficacy of those techniques. However, it was also theorized that optimal benefits from these techniques could not be obtained outside of the life of the Orthodox Church and her Holy Mysteries, and therefore it was expected, that the findings would show that, while all who participated in the neptic-psychotherapeutic treatment plan would benefit from the same to some degree, only those Orthodox Christians, who were actively in the process of theosis, would obtain the most favorable of benefits from participation in the twelve-week treatment program. The Research Problem and Hypotheses [see section 1.4] and Research Objectives [see section 1.6] were developed in response to this thesis statement.
If you are seriously interested PM me as their might be other ways to obtain a copy.
Jason H.
21-08-2010, 07:30 AM
Fr. Gregory,
Here is the link to his thesis: http://uir.unisa.ac.za/dspace/bitstream/10500/3192/1/dissertation_vujisic_.pdf
On the same topic of treating depressive symptomatology Yale researchers found that low amounts of ketamine is a more powerful and effective treatment of depression,
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0819/study-touts-horse-tranquilizer-ketamine-magic-antidepressant/
-Ignatius
Rick H.
21-08-2010, 02:55 PM
Thanks for the link Ignatius.
I think this looks very interesting, and I notice that we make it a whole six pages into the book before the subject of Asian practices are introduced!
Fr Raphael Vereshack
21-08-2010, 06:40 PM
I have just come across a main passage in St Augustine's City of God where he discusses lust and physical relations. Since this topic (and St Augustine's view on it) have been mentioned a number of times in this thread I thought it helpful to present it here for consideration.
Book XIV Chapter 16.— Of the Evil of Lust—A Word Which, Though Applicable to Many Vices, is Specially Appropriated to Sexual Uncleanness.
Although, therefore, lust may have many objects, yet when no object is specified, the word lust usually suggests to the mind the lustful excitement of the organs of generation. And this lust not only takes possession of the whole body and outward members, but also makes itself felt within, and moves the whole man with a passion in which mental emotion is mingled with bodily appetite, so that the pleasure which results is the greatest of all bodily pleasures. So possessing indeed is this pleasure, that at the moment of time in which it is consummated, all mental activity is suspended. What friend of wisdom and holy joys, who, being married, but knowing, as the apostle says, "how to possess his vessel in santification and honor, not in the disease of desire, as the Gentiles who know not God," 1 Thessalonians 4:4 would not prefer, if this were possible , to beget children without this lust, so that in this function of begetting offspring the members created for this purpose should not be stimulated by the heat of lust, but should be actuated by his volition, in the same way as his other members serve him for their respective ends? But even those who delight in this pleasure are not moved to it at their own will, whether they confine themselves to lawful or transgress to unlawful pleasures; but sometimes this lust importunes them in spite of themselves, and sometimes fails them when they desire to feel it, so that though lust rages in the mind, it stirs not in the body. Thus, strangely enough, this emotion not only fails to obey the legitimate desire to beget offspring, but also refuses to serve lascivious lust; and though it often opposes its whole combined energy to the soul that resists it, sometimes also it is divided against itself, and while it moves the soul, leaves the body unmoved.
Administrator
21-08-2010, 08:45 PM
To all members: There was some query as to the legitimacy / copyright status of the link provided earlier. Please note that this is a legitimate link to the electronic copy of the author's thesis as made available by the awarding academic institution on its own web site.
However, the author has subsequently published an edition of the same text, which is available from Amazon by clicking this link (http://www.amazon.com/ORTHODOX-PSYCHOTHERAPY-Treatment-Depression-Anxiety/dp/3639224280). We would encourage anyone who finds the subject matter helpful and the content of the study interesting, to purchase a copy so as to support the author and the Orthodox causes to which he dedicates income from the sales.
Fr Raphael Vereshack
22-08-2010, 03:23 PM
Coming to the end of Book XIV of St Augustine's City of God, I now see that much of this whole Book is devoted to a discussion of the relationship of lust to physical relations. As such it is one of the most fascinating and insightful discussions I have come across in the Fathers on this issue. St Augustine tends to repeats his main points over and over in different ways, so that you gradually get what he's saying in its deeper meaning. And in this case much of St Augustine's presentation actually comes down to anthropology. I would strongly urge Forum members then to read this Book- hopefully though it still conveys its message without having to read through the whole of the City of God!
In any case, St Augustine does not say that physical relations should occur without sexual excitement. In fact he implies quite the contrary. But to get his overall point we need to back up a bit. The larger context of this whole discussion is on how the Fall could occur if human nature is created good by God. To explain this St Augustine focuses on the human will and how it freely turned away from its life in God. Inasmuch as it did this we immediately fell since by nature we are completely dependent on God for the existence of our being and its spiritual sustenance. Now an effect of this falling away of the will from God is that the human falls into an inner conflict with itself within its own being. Passions arise that war against and captivate the will. In all of this it is very important to keep in mind that the will in St Augustine's understanding is the chief seat of man's ability to act according to his created image. Once the will has fallen and been affected by the Fall, the very integrity of man to act freely according to this image is impaired. Man's life becomes defined by the conflict of his very being with itself. In the very struggle to do what is good, passions from within himself fight against this good. In none of this however is there the implication that the image within man is fundamentally destroyed- impaired yes. But St Augustine is adamant that man's good nature still remains.
It is within this scenario then that St Augustine places the issue of procreation. He believes that man would have been called to 'increase & multiply' even in Paradise. And if the Fall had not occurred this would have occurred without lust, but rather through the free employment of will. As he says: "Without doubt, the marriage in paradise would not have known this opposition, this resistance, this tussle between lust and will." (Bk XIV, Chap 23). Now in all of this it is essential to grasp St Augustine's essential point. He believes in the accuracy of his description of Paradise- but that is due to the way in which he almost always works from a central theological point, and then draws out its likely effects on the material, perceptible (historical) plane. So the point to keep in mind here about St Augustine's description of procreation without lust in Paradise is: i) that from the beginning as something essentially good and created, man acted in relationship between male & female. This in turn refers to the reality of how the Church has always been present from the beginning of creation as a community whose life is grounded totally in the vision and contemplation of God. In other words the Church as a reality is inherent to the very reality of creation itself. (St Augustine actually commences this description of the created Church from the first creation of the angels). ii) the relationship between man & woman that occurs without lust by the free employment of will, is rooted in the free nature of man's own being, that he acts at one with his own nature, and not according to the inner conflict that occurs after the Fall.
Now in this presentation itself (besides statements which imply this) the obvious implication is that procreation now, sexual relations now, always involve 'excitation'. No amount of effort is going to get us back to the pre-Fall state, without first going through that profound inner transformation that can only be accomplished finally by Christ and at the completion of all things.
St Augustine however does not (at least not up to this point in the book) get into a discussion about Christian sexual relations. From within the context just described and the facts of his own life it is obvious that he understood what the reality of married life involved on the sexual level. He does not attack this reality. However his focus is chiefly on passion and its enslaving aspect, and so for him lust is always a passion, even if out of discretion and charity he will not use this to attack the married life. Quite likely, along with the rest of the Church he urged that love be the basis for the married relationship, and that this love enlighten the physical both in regards to the bond and towards the effort of chastity.
In Christ- Fr Raphael
Fr Raphael Vereshack
15-09-2010, 04:40 PM
I stated previously that I strongly suspected that St Augustine's understanding of sexual relations is often misunderstood. That he is much too pastoral and practically knowledgeable to easily accept that he could have put forward the idea of a virtue that amounts to 'physical relations without sexual excitement'.
In any case here is what he writes in Book XIX Chap 1 of City of God:
Now physical pleasure is subordinated to virtue when it is brought into the service of virtue. For example, it is part of the obligation involved in virtue to live for one's country and to produce sons for the sake of one's country; and neither of these duties can be fulfilled without bodily pleasure. For such pleasure is a necessary accompaniment of eating and drinking in order to live, and of sexual intercourse with a view to procreation. On the other hand, when sensual pleasure is put above virtue, it is sought for its own sake, and it is believed that virtue should be brought into its service- that is, that the only purpose of virtue should be the achievement or maintenance of sensual pleasure. Now this is certainly an ugly way of life- it must be so when virtue is the slave of tyrant pleasure, although in this situation it is not called virtue.
In other words St Augustine is saying that there is a degree of sensual pleasure involved in eating and sexual intercourse. This can scarcely be avoided. However, virtue must be the guiding principle in such relations (thus he mentions the various responsibilities involved in raising children) and sensuality does not become an end in itself.
In other words St Augustine is not at all saying that sexual relations are devoid of the sensual. Nor is he saying that such relations are utilitarian: ie only for raising children. Rather he is pointing out where the focus of such relations should be- on love as directed outwards instead of on one's own gratification.
In Christ- Fr Raphael
Jan Sunqvist
16-09-2010, 07:02 PM
Thank you Fr. Vereshack for bringing that. Personally I would be very confused if the 'sensual pleasure' aspect of it would be considered as sin in itself. The notion of 'subordination' seems to include the bigger picture.
I think it is interesting you bring the comparison to sensual pleasure in eating. Fasting is a good practice toward the better relationship, but something that's rarely considered is how one eats. Often I notice that when I am hungry or in a rush or simply allow the animal to take over with its own strong 'sensual' pull, I will eat like an animal - like when a dog is devouring a piece of meat, it's whole world in that moment revolves around it. In such a state it is impossible to be grateful for the food and its life sustaining substances. Just a thought.
As I opened my internet browser today I read a piece of news about the Pope and the handling of paedophilia cases. I don't draw any conclusions because I simply do not understand things on a deeper level, but I am left with a big question, that relates to this thread very much and that I still feel like not many people are willing to discuss even though it seems extraordinarily important. Why is it not considered when it seems so obvious??
I don't know exactly how it came about that Catholic priests were required to be celibate despite living in the world. But it seems obvious that in order for this practice of abstinence not to backfire in one way or another, one needs very strong ascetic practice. The more one abstains the more one needs spiritual practice, prayer and fasting to maintain physical and spiritual health.
So for someone single and not in a monastery, in the world where food and sleep are not controlled, without the training of the senses, without being taught to pray without ceasing, without all that makes abstinence not just bearable but possible...
To be honest I am not expecting a guidebook with answers but what baffles me is the lack of acknowledgment of these issues. When someone in authority makes the 'marriage or celibacy' pronouncement without showing that they deeply understand what this practically means, let alone help and show you the way, it's quite discouraging.
Grace Singh
16-09-2010, 11:12 PM
there is a trend i have noticed in gay and lesbian individuals whom i've met, namely that many, many of them tended to have had an unusually unhappy or distressing childhood, usually dependent on one or more parent.
children with abusive or distant parents, children more or less raised by an opposite-gender parent (e.g. sons raised by mothers and sisters), or children who experienced the traumatic death of a parent, seem far more likely to indentify as homosexual later in life, experience same-sex attraction, or display characteristics of the opposite gender.
it is perhaps a combination of environmental, psychological, and hormonal factors, but certainly not a God-given part of who the person is, or a mode of being which glorifies Him.
Paul Cowan
17-09-2010, 04:45 AM
My experience with homosexuals is that 100% of them were molested as children. I have yet to encounter, and I have plenty of opportunities to meet, anyone who is gay as not having been molested. True, not everyone who is molested is gay. But everyone who is gay has been molested. Whether their memory allows them to remember it or not. If they dig deep enough, something always surfaces.
Also I have seen abusive (emotionally, physically, sexually) or even quasi normal other gender single parents of children raise their children deliberatley or not to become introverted, anti social, often acting out sexually or with drugs and alcohol.
God designed the "family" to include father and mother. Not one or the other. Children not raised in a healthy complete family structure are more times than not not equipped to handle life in a healthy way.
And yes, this is a broad generalized brush stroke. But by and large accurate.
Paul
Jason H.
17-09-2010, 07:47 AM
I have to say that as a gay man, I was never molested and grew up in a "father/mother" family. And of the 15 friends that just come to mind, they also grew up in the same types of families. I have come across heterosexuals who were molested as children and they are still heterosexual.
I do not think that one can accurately and definitively say which is "true." I'm inclined to ask you, Paul, how many case studies have you done that involved a gay/lesbian individual? Did you also do a psychological test along with your observations? Did it include a wide range of subjects not limited to those in a designated area? Were you able to also to get information from said gay/lesbians parents about their upbringing?
My experience with heterosexuals is that 100% of them can not identify nor characterize what a gay person is. We should not be making assumptions.
Paul Cowan
17-09-2010, 03:33 PM
I help treat people with sex addictions. I deal with 30 or so a week. 60% of them are gay men and women. Never during their recanting of their history is any of them not disclosed a molestation at some point in their life. Most had father/mother family of origins. Of course I can't talk to their parents.
I am not saying I can identify a gay person by looking at them. Just as you can't a straight person. They are both identified by their actions. I challenge you to do a personal indepth inventory of your life from your earliest memories with no preconceived notion of not remembering your life and see if there was not an instance of something inappropriate done to you.
As I said above and I agree with you here, not everyone who is molested is gay. But everyone who is gay has been molested. Just as I can say not every business that has a neon sign out front is a porn shop, but every porn shop has a neon sign out front.
NO ONE is born gay. Homosexuality is a learned behavior. To learn something it has to be taught. If it is taught, then the person has been exposed to it. To be exposed to it is to be molested regardless of the age of the person. I am not making assumptions. I feel in my arena of helping people recover from this addiction I have a right to these statements.
Father David Moser
17-09-2010, 04:05 PM
I help treat people with sex addictions.
Let's pause right here. Your sampled population is already selective. You are dealing with a subset of homosexuals who have self identified as having a problem with "sex addiction". I think that you cannot draw a valid conclusion about "all homosexuals" because your sample is insufficient. In order to draw valid conclusion about "all homosexuals" you would have to widen your sample to include an equivalent number of both hetero and homo sexual interviewees who do not suffer from sexual addiction and then compare the incidence of childhood molestation across the board with the incidence of homosexuality. Statistics can be a real pain, but the principles which determine a valid statistical sampling can prevent a false conclusion resulting from a skewed sample.
NO ONE is born gay. Homosexuality is a learned behavior. To learn something it has to be taught. If it is taught, then the person has been exposed to it. To be exposed to it is to be molested regardless of the age of the person. I am not making assumptions. I feel in my arena of helping people recover from this addiction I have a right to these statements.
You have a right to your opinion, which is certainly informed by your experience. I only argue that your opinion is not as universally valid as you might think.
Homosexuality is indeed a learned behavior - but I think it can be learned in many different ways. My own take deals more with an incorrect or skewed learning of behavior related to the issues of identity and intimacy in adolescence and early adulthood. But that would be a discussion of psychological theories of personality combined with the sociological aspects of the modern world. It results in a spiritual challenge, but is not per se a spiritual issue.
Fr David Moser
Jason H.
17-09-2010, 04:37 PM
I help treat people with sex addictions. I deal with 30 or so a week. 60% of them are gay men and women. Never during their recanting of their history is any of them not disclosed a molestation at some point in their life. Most had father/mother family of origins. Of course I can't talk to their parents.
You are dealing with people who have an addiction. Being gay is not an addiction. You deal with people who suffer from psychological damage and are acting out their issues through sex.
They are both identified by their actions.
That's not a fair statement. I know gay people who do not act on their desire and they still identify themselves as gay. I'm gay and I live a celibate lifestyle. To say that they are indentified by their actions is not a valid point. So, if a heterosexual doesn't act on their desire then what are they?
I challenge you to do a personal indepth inventory of your life from your earliest memories with no preconceived notion of not remembering your life and see if there was not an instance of something inappropriate done to you.
I've been in therapy and pyschological environments in which I have recalled my childhood in depth and NO history of molestation or anything inappropriate. Don't you think it is wrong to make such accusations to people you don't know?
But everyone who is gay has been molested.
You can't prove that. I already make your point moot. In the 2000 Census there was 594,391 SS couples. Can you honestly make such a blatant generalized statement about that many people?
I feel in my arena of helping people recover from this addiction I have a right to these statements
You only have the right to make a statement about the people whom you have experience with, that is addicts. You don't have a scope of the whole GLBT community.
Grace Singh
17-09-2010, 05:05 PM
i also wouldn't venture that every homosexual individual was molested as a child. and as Jason and Father David have said, it's also posisble that it's the sex addiction, not the same-sex attraction, which is the outcome of childhood molestation.
i have noticed, in gay and lesbian acquaintences and classmates, that there is often a history of trauma, abuse, unhappiness, or lack with regards to parental upbringing or interactions. sometimes that took the form of sexual abuse, othertimes not. i've also met quite a few people with sexual abuse in their past who are heterosexual, or asexual (interested neither in men, nor women). it depends.
homosexuality is not merely a series of actions or behaviours. it's also a mode of identifying one's self, an orientation, and a tendency towards attraction. there's an emotional, psychological, and ingrained aspect to it, which may or may not lead to acts with another person.
Paul Cowan
18-09-2010, 03:06 AM
Let's pause right here. Your sampled population is already selective. You are dealing with a subset of homosexuals who have self identified as having a problem with "sex addiction". I think that you cannot draw a valid conclusion about "all homosexuals" because your sample is insufficient. In order to draw valid conclusion about "all homosexuals" you would have to widen your sample to include an equivalent number of both hetero and homo sexual interviewees who do not suffer from sexual addiction and then compare the incidence of childhood molestation across the board with the incidence of homosexuality. Statistics can be a real pain, but the principles which determine a valid statistical sampling can prevent a false conclusion resulting from a skewed sample.
You have a right to your opinion, which is certainly informed by your experience. I only argue that your opinion is not as universally valid as you might think.
Homosexuality is indeed a learned behavior - but I think it can be learned in many different ways. My own take deals more with an incorrect or skewed learning of behavior related to the issues of identity and intimacy in adolescence and early adulthood. But that would be a discussion of psychological theories of personality combined with the sociological aspects of the modern world. It results in a spiritual challenge, but is not per se a spiritual issue.
Fr David Moser
Fr. David, knowing your background in the field, I defer to your experience. I have only been doing this for 6 years. I have been associated with several different types of 12 step groups. The one thing they all seem to treat as the elephant in the room is their underlying problem with sex addiction. Every sex addict that has come into the rooms that also came from another 12 step program openly admits this issue is why they ended up in the other program. Their combined stories of their fellows in those other programs shows a propensity for this particular addiction leading them into that other addiction.
I am not working on a paper, I am not licensed, I am no professional. I just help people. Being "self professed" addicts or not, the behavior is the same. They do things they wish they did not do. To find a group of people that profess not to be sex addicts would be difficult in the extreme seeing the behavior of people in the community. One person's addictive behavior is not necessarily another's. Each is and can be addicted to sex in a different way (http://saa-recovery.org/IsSAAForYou/AreYouASexAddict/).
The group I help is a mixed group of men and women gay and straight. Over the years there have been hundreds that have come and gone through this group. What constitutes "enough" people to draw a conclusion? Lord knows every other poll out there uses selective means to gather their data. I know someone very close to me that professes not to be a sex addict. I know full well he is based on behaviors that are mirrored by others who do profess the addiction, but he rejects the title for fear of being labeled and with the justification that everyone does "it". Doing so would also mean he would have to alter his behavior and be accountable for it. What's easier? To act out sexually in one or many of its varied forms and keep it hidden from everyone or to say, "I have a problem and need help in changing my behavior" and then being accountable to someone for that decision.
The more I write the more I know I am pushing the envelope of the forum rules. I apologize. I am very passionate to help people through this particular addiction as it cripples our society, families and individuals. If anyone is interested in getting help for themselves or a loved one through this program here (http://saa-recovery.org/) is the link.
Jason: I stand by what I said. Until I meet some of these people you profess are out there in the GLBT community and see they do not deal with sex issues I am not going to be convinced. So far, everyone I have met in this community IS. Your census number doesn't mean anything. YOU also do not know these people intimately. People hide within themselves. Compartmentalization is at the very heart of this addiciton (think, leading a double life). Until you are in a setting where all walls are down for years at a time like in a SAA meeting, you can't imagine what is in people's heads.
A gay person that does not act on their desires is the exact same as a hetero person that does not act on theirs. They are no different. If this hits too close to home I am sorry. I call it as I see it. I said earlier I started with a broad brush stroke. I seem to have been pulled in to a more detailed discussion.
If one believes in the aerial toll houses (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Aerial_Toll-Houses), #'s 16, 17 and 18 are all sex based tollhouses. Obviously this issue is enough of a trap that the fathers identified 3 separate occassions for us to be judged against our behaviors after death.
The sixteenth is the toll-house of lust- fornication, unclean thoughts, lustful looks, unchaste touches.
The seventeenth is the toll-house of adultery.
The eighteenth is the toll-house of sodomy: bestiality, homosexuality, incest, masturbation, and all other unnatural sins.
I do not want to argue with you and will not continue this discussion except via PM; being gay is not an addiction. "Acting out" gay is an addiction. Just as "acting out straight" is an addiction. God made us man for woman. Through the Fall, man has gone astray. This is a powerful, cunning and baffeling disease. Lord have mercy on us.
Paul
Jason H.
20-09-2010, 04:11 PM
Paul,
I'm sorry but your understanding of sexual orientation is very skewed. You cannot definitevly say that ALL gays/lesbians are the way they are because at some point in their life they suffered a traumatic event. You say that you work specifically in the area of dealing with people who have sex addiction, that includes both heterosexuals and homosexuals. You have said that both groups have indicated an event in their life that was traumatic. You argue that it was those events that made homosexuals the way they are. Yet, how do you explain the heterosexuals who suffered a traumatic event yet did not turn out gay/lesbian?
Have you done any work outside of these people. Have you known people in the GLBT community that live in your city and if so how many of them have you interviewed about their condition? The reason I posted the census numbers is to show the amount of people that there are that you are saying they are who they are because of a traumatic event in their lives. Do you not think that is a little prejudicial? Are you not making an assumption?
As for the people that I know, and have known for many years, they, like me, have never suffered a traumatic event in their childhood that "caused" them to be gay/lesbian. How do you account for that? And do not say that because you have not interviewed them then my statement is wrong and you are right.
I know all about 12 steps meeting. I spent 2 months at a rehabilitation place where I encountered all sorts of individuals with addictions. AA, NA, EA, SAA, EDA.
You realize that your idea of the formation of gays/lesbians goes againist the American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association. If I may also ask, what type of education do you have related to your idea. Do you have education regarding sociology, psychology, therapy?
-Ignatius
Father David Moser
20-09-2010, 04:17 PM
You realize that your idea of the formation of gays/lesbians goes againist the American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association.
Please note that the definitions of the APA and AMA, particularly those regarding the diagnosis and etiology of "social" disorders has little to do with psychology or medicine and are primarily politically motivated (as in they are created under the pressure of being "politically correct"). The DSM is a very "political" document and while useful for creating diagnostic categories, it is certainly not authoritative and often not even helpful when it comes to actual etiology or treatment.
Fr David Moser
Jason H.
20-09-2010, 04:24 PM
Please note that the definitions of the APA and AMA, particularly those regarding the diagnosis and etiology of "social" disorders has little to do with psychology or medicine and are primarily politically motivated (as in they are created under the pressure of being "politically correct"). The DSM is a very "political" document and while useful for creating diagnostic categories, it is certainly not authoritative and often not even helpful when it comes to actual etiology or treatment.
Fr David Moser
Father David,
Father, bless!
I'm sorry but I must respectfully disagree that these institutions are politically motivated. Having family and friends in both fields I see nothing "political" about their work. Both fields have been beneficial to society in etiology and treatment.
-Ignatius
Benjamin Amis
20-09-2010, 05:54 PM
I can't recall if I posted here before. If I have, it was a long time ago, so here we go again...
Does it truly matter if it is by genetics or by psychology? Scientists have identified a "murder" gene, a "rape" gene and all sorts of other genetic markers shared by criminals that may very well contribute to their dispensation to criminal activity. That doesn't automatically make their crimes unpunishable. Every person as a thorn in their flesh (or two, or three...) and must deal with the result of fallen human nature.
Whether or not homosexuality is a psychological disorder or genetic issue is really quite moot. We know that it is unnatural, in an ontological sense: humanity was not created for homosexual relations. It is a result of the Fall that genetic defects have come into existence, that the circumstances of psychological trama exist, etc. The reponse of the Church towards the pentinent should be the same: to heal that which is broken.
Father David Moser
20-09-2010, 06:04 PM
Father David,
Father, bless!
I'm sorry but I must respectfully disagree that these institutions are politically motivated. Having family and friends in both fields I see nothing "political" about their work. Both fields have been beneficial to society in etiology and treatment.
-Ignatius
I not only have family and friends in both fields, I myself was "in the field" as a therapist (LPC in Colorado, later a state Psychologist and Clinical Supervisor in ID) for almost 20 years. Much of that time I specialized in assessment and diagnostics. Especially in the APA, the listings in the DSM of such things as "homosexuality" and other "socially sensitive" diagnoses changed to fit the political atmosphere of current societal ideals and were at the time (and I imagine still are, but I'm out of it now) highly controversial within the profession.
To clarify, I did not say that the institutions are politically motivated or that people in those professions are necessarily "political", but that certain definitions in the DSM are politically defined rather than relating to actual objective observation.
The point - to bring this back to Orthodox Christianity - is that I would much sooner trust scriptural and patristic definitions and instructions about these sins which are based on the revealed Truth of the Creator of mankind rather than the politically motivated definitions of these man made, worldly and definitely a-spiritual organizations.
Fr David Moser
Fr Raphael Vereshack
04-10-2010, 04:54 PM
Possibly a last post from St Augustine's City of God on the subject of sensual pleasure and sexuality. This is from Book 21, Chap 26.— What It is to Have Christ for a Foundation, and Who They are to Whom Salvation as by Fire is Promised. It is very well worth a thorough read since the subject of 'licit pleasure' often comes up in pastoral practice but very few Fathers deal with it for obvious reasons.
In fact St Augustine presents the most thorough and balanced presentation I have so far come across on this topic. From this one chapter a very thorough discussion could occur that would be greatly profitable to us. But to summarize very briefly: St Augustine places this discussion within the framework of 1 Cor 3: 11-16; that the foundation we build on will be tested with fire; and crucially, 'if anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.' (vs 15). The essential elements of the discussion are that sensual pleasure results from the Fall but is now an inextricable aspect of life. This needs to be looked at carefully for some of this pleasure now relates to relationships in life (eg human company, sustenance of life) which it would be wrong to back off from; and these relationships have inherent potential blessings in themselves. So we admit this aspect of the relationship but must put Christ first. Indeed it is this latter which for St Augustine ultimately balances our relationship with humanity and life in general, for in Christ worldly aspects of these relationships are gradually removed from us and thus the relationships are gradually purified. This purification begins to happen in our present life through the various vicissitudes and ascetic efforts of life; but it mainly occurs after our death and at the End when all relationships will be purified.
A word of clarification: the surrounding chapters in The City of God deal with what St Augustine believes to be false understandings of salvation. This chapter 26 is on those who feel they can be saved just by being part of the Church and having been baptized without regard for their way of life. Very rapidly though in the second paragraph with the words, "We shall then ascertain who it is who can be saved by fire", St Augustine moves into the discussion we are concerned with here.
But, say they, the Catholic Christians have Christ for a foundation, and they have not fallen away from union with Him, no matter how depraved a life they have built on this foundation, as wood, hay, stubble; and accordingly the well-directed faith by which Christ is their foundation will suffice to deliver them some time from the continuance of that fire, though it be with loss, since those things they have built on it shall be burned. Let the Apostle James summarily reply to them: "If any man say he has faith, and have not works, can faith save him?" James 2:14 And who then is it, they ask, of whom the Apostle Paul says, "But he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire?" Let us join them in their inquiry; and one thing is very certain, that it is not he of whom James speaks, else we should make the two apostles contradict one another, if the one says, "Though a man's works be evil, his faith will save him as by fire," while the other says, "If he have not good works, can his faith save him?"
We shall then ascertain who it is who can be saved by fire, if we first discover what it is to have Christ for a foundation. And this we may very readily learn from the image itself. In a building the foundation is first. Whoever, then, has Christ in his heart, so that no earthly or temporal things— not even those that are legitimate and allowed— are preferred to Him, has Christ as a foundation. But if these things be preferred, then even though a man seem to have faith in Christ, yet Christ is not the foundation to that man; and much more if he, in contempt of wholesome precepts, seek forbidden gratifications, is he clearly convicted of putting Christ not first but last, since he has despised Him as his ruler, and has preferred to fulfill his own wicked lusts, in contempt of Christ's commands and allowances. Accordingly, if any Christian man loves a harlot, and, attaching himself to her, becomes one body, he has not now Christ for a foundation. But if any one loves his own wife, and loves her as Christ would have him love her, who can doubt that he has Christ for a foundation? But if he loves her in the world's fashion, carnally, as the disease of lust prompts him, and as the Gentiles love who know not God, even this the apostle, or rather Christ by the apostle, allows as a venial fault. And therefore even such a man may have Christ for a foundation. For so long as he does not prefer such an affection or pleasure to Christ, Christ is his foundation, though on it he builds wood, hay, stubble; and therefore he shall be saved as by fire. For the fire of affliction shall burn such luxurious pleasures and earthly loves, though they be not damnable, because enjoyed in lawful wedlock. And of this fire the fuel is bereavement, and all those calamities which consume these joys. Consequently the superstructure will be loss to him who has built it, for he shall not retain it, but shall be agonized by the loss of those things in the enjoyment of which he found pleasure. But by this fire he shall be saved through virtue of the foundation, because even if a persecutor demanded whether he would retain Christ or these things, he would prefer Christ. Would you hear, in the apostle's own words, who he is who builds on the foundation gold, silver, precious stones? "He that is unmarried," he says, "cares for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord." 1 Corinthians 7:32 Would you hear who he is that builds wood, hay, stubble? But he that is married cares for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. 1 Corinthians 7:33 "Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it,"— the day, no doubt, of tribulation— "because," says he, "it shall be revealed by fire." 1 Corinthians 3:13 He calls tribulation fire, just as it is elsewhere said, "The furnace proves the vessels of the potter, and the trial of affliction righteous men." Sirach 27:5 And "The fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide"— for a man's care for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord, abides— "which he has built thereupon, he shall receive a reward,"— that is, he shall reap the fruit of his care. "But if any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss,"— for what he loved he shall not retain:— " but he himself shall be saved,"— for no tribulation shall have moved him from that stable foundation—"yet so as by fire;" 1 Corinthians 3:14-15 for that which he possessed with the sweetness of love he does not lose without the sharp sting of pain. Here, then, as seems to me, we have a fire which destroys neither, but enriches the one, brings loss to the other, proves both.
But if this passage [of Corinthians] is to interpret that fire of which the Lord shall say to those on His left hand, "Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire," Matthew 25:41 so that among these we are to believe there are those who build on the foundation wood, hay, stubble, and that they, through virtue of the good foundation, shall after a time be liberated from the fire that is the award of their evil deserts, what then shall we think of those on the right hand, to whom it shall be said, "Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you," Matthew 25:34 unless that they are those who have built on the foundation gold, silver, precious stones? But if the fire of which our Lord speaks is the same as that of which the apostle says, "Yet so as by fire," then both— that is to say, both those on the right as well as those on the left— are to be cast into it. For that fire is to try both, since it is said, "For the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is." 1 Corinthians 3:13 If, therefore, the fire shall try both, in order that if any man's work abide— i.e., if the superstructure be not consumed by the fire— he may receive a reward, and that if his work is burned he may suffer loss, certainly that fire is not the eternal fire itself. For into this latter fire only those on the left hand shall be cast, and that with final and everlasting doom; but that former fire proves those on the right hand. But some of them it so proves that it does not burn and consume the structure which is found to have been built by them on Christ as the foundation; while others of them it proves in another fashion, so as to burn what they have built up, and thus cause them to suffer loss, while they themselves are saved because they have retained Christ, who was laid as their sure foundation, and have loved Him above all. But if they are saved, then certainly they shall stand at the right hand, and shall with the rest hear the sentence, "Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you;" and not at the left hand, where those shall be who shall not be saved, and shall therefore hear the doom, "Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire." For from that fire no man shall be saved, because they all shall go away into eternal punishment, where their worms shall not die, nor their fire be quenched, in which they shall be tormented day and night for ever.
But if it be said that in the interval of time between the death of this body and that last day of judgment and retribution which shall follow the resurrection, the bodies of the dead shall be exposed to a fire of such a nature that it shall not affect those who have not in this life indulged in such pleasures and pursuits as shall be consumed like wood, hay, stubble, but shall affect those others who have carried with them structures of that kind; if it be said that such worldliness, being venial, shall be consumed in the fire of tribulation either here only, or here and hereafter both, or here that it may not be hereafter—this I do not contradict, because possibly it is true. For perhaps even the death of the body is itself a part of this tribulation, for it results from the first transgression, so that the time which follows death takes its color in each case from the nature of the man's building. The persecutions, too, which have crowned the martyrs, and which Christians of all kinds suffer, try both buildings like a fire, consuming some, along with the builders themselves, if Christ is not found in them as their foundation, while others they consume without the builders, because Christ is found in them, and they are saved, though with loss; and other buildings still they do not consume, because such materials as abide for ever are found in them. In the end of the world there shall be in the time of Antichrist tribulation such as has never before been. How many edifices there shall then be, of gold or of hay, built on the best foundation, Christ Jesus, which that fire shall prove, bringing joy to some, loss to others, but without destroying either sort, because of this stable foundation! But whosoever prefers, I do not say his wife, with whom he lives for carnal pleasure, but any of those relatives who afford no delight of such a kind, and whom it is right to love—whosoever prefers these to Christ, and loves them after a human and carnal fashion, has not Christ as a foundation, and will therefore not be saved by fire, nor indeed at all; for he shall not possibly dwell with the Saviour, who says very explicitly concerning this very matter, "He that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." Matthew 10:37 But he who loves his relations carnally, and yet so that he does not prefer them to Christ, but would rather want them than Christ if he were put to the proof, shall be saved by fire, because it is necessary that by the loss of these relations he suffer pain in proportion to his love. And he who loves father, mother, sons, daughters, according to Christ, so that he aids them in obtaining His kingdom and cleaving to Him, or loves them because they are members of Christ, God forbid that this love should be consumed as wood, hay, stubble, and not rather be reckoned a structure of gold, silver, precious stones. For how can a man love those more than Christ whom he loves only for Christ's sake?
Owen Jones
05-10-2010, 02:54 PM
Well, that's a loaded question, isn't it?
Jan Sunqvist
05-10-2010, 05:56 PM
In light of the 6 recent suicides of kids all under 18 (some as young as 13!), I could hardly agree with you Owen. The question is not loaded at all, rather our attitudes to it are. The focus of this whole thread has been all personal opinions/ethics/theology/philosophy which is only good to the extent it points to a (practical) way out of trouble/sin.
Ronnie Shakespeare
05-10-2010, 06:43 PM
What gets me about same sex Attraction is Animals: Not only do monkys have sex with multable partners: males have sex with males: My father who bread pigions and budgies noticed the same thing: Why has this Sin spread to the Animal kingdom
Its not as if it was Inherited from Adam.
John Konstantin
05-10-2010, 06:54 PM
What gets me about same sex Attraction is Animals: Not only do monkys have sex with multable partners: males have sex with males: My father who bread pigions and budgies noticed the same thing: Why has this Sin spread to the Animal kingdom
Its not as if it was Inherited from Adam.
Because the whole of creation is fallen, not just human beings. BTW I had a dog once who had a habit of trying to mate with the legs of human beings. I don't think this spaniel was sinful...just a little, how shall we say, dumb:)
Antonios
05-10-2010, 06:55 PM
Why has this Sin spread to the Animal kingdom
I believe the teachings are the all of creation was affected by the sin of Adam.
edit: what John said above!
Jason H.
05-10-2010, 06:59 PM
Because the whole of creation is fallen, not just human beings.
Could you please provide a citation for this?
John Konstantin
05-10-2010, 07:14 PM
Could you please provide a citation for this?
KONTAKION 3
We are to blame for the calamities in the world, for the
sufferings of dumb creatures, and for the diseases and
torments of innocent children, for through the fall of man the
beatitude and beauty of all creation has been marred. O
Christ our God, greatest of innocent Sufferers! Thou alone
canst forgive all. Forgive, then, all and everything, and grant
to the world its primordial prosperity, that the living and the
dead may rejoice and cry: ALLELUIA.
(A K A T H I S T
For the REPOSE of Those Who have FALLEN ASLEEP)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.5 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.