OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 31, 2014, 08:18:55 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: what IS sex?  (Read 11057 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Tikhon.of.Colorado
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,363



« on: July 19, 2010, 10:24:21 AM »

I had an interesting debate with my mother about what sex is.  I know I'm just 15, but I know enough from TV, school, and my four pregnant friends.  you see, my mother and I have DRASTICALLY different views of sex.  I believe that sex is how two devoted people consumate their marriage, sortof "sealing the deal".  this means that their together, they've become one.  I also believe that the reason sex feels good, and we want to do it, is so that we want to reproduce.  it's basic science. 

my mother feels that casual sex should be like "going to dinner".  it doesn't matter if people just do it to do it.  she also says people want to have sex to have sex, and it stops there (whereas I believe people want to to have children).  my mother also believes that you shouldn't have to marry to have sex a/o live together. and that people shouldn't be stuck with just one lover for the rest of their lives.  I ask her if she condones polygamy, and she does not.  she believes that people can just casually have sex with anyone they care about, and not have to own up to any commitment.

who is correct?!  am I to conservative when it comes to this?  is my mother too liberal? 
Logged

"It is true that I am not always faithful, but I never lose courage, I leave myself in the Arms of Our Lord." - St. Thérèse of Lisieux
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #1 on: July 19, 2010, 10:31:05 AM »

Well, if I understand correctly... you seem more Orthodox in your views. However, I would agree with some of what your mother believes. For example, many people do have sex without wanting to have children--or even wanting not to have children. On the other hand, I think it's inconsistent to be ok with casual sex, but not be ok with polyamory... but maybe that's just me.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,204



WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 19, 2010, 10:48:22 AM »

Sex is not sacred nor banal. It has a spiritual aspect to it, but it is something of the body.

Psychologically, we feel attached to the person we have sex with. "Liberal" people think this is childish and something to be outgrown from in order to do it just like friends have drinks. It is not. It is what sex is meant to be: something that makes us feel closer to our partner. To "outgrow" this feeling, is the same as to "outgrow" the sensation of pain when we touch fire or the sensation of pleasure when feeling the wind blow on a sunny summer morning. It mutilates our spirit. That is why promiscuity is considered a sin. Not because it is a crime, but because it numbs an important "sixth sense", that of bodily communion with our beloved. This perception is not naivete, but a subtle pleasure that the "liberals" have long forgotten, possibly because they were very hurt precisely in this aspect. Most people have been, because it is one of the most fragile points of our souls.

Sex before marriage is wrong, not because it is "against the tradition" but because it *will* attach you spiritually to a person who may hurt you. Or not. It's a lottery, and our heart is too precious to be bet in a lottery. Sex after marriage, in theory, will have this attachment occur with a person who you already know and, of your own free will, have chosen to be attached with, not forgetting that it is a relation that has already received the blessing of the Lord.

About your mother, she is offering you what she thinks is best for you out of love. Respect and look up to this love. Just remember that she too is a human being and may be wrong and you don't have to label her anything for that. Although she is wrong in this, I'm sure she is also about other things.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2010, 10:52:02 AM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #3 on: July 19, 2010, 11:46:22 AM »

I had an interesting debate with my mother about what sex is.  I know I'm just 15, but I know enough from TV, school, and my four pregnant friends.  you see, my mother and I have DRASTICALLY different views of sex.  I believe that sex is how two devoted people consumate their marriage, sortof "sealing the deal".  this means that their together, they've become one.  I also believe that the reason sex feels good, and we want to do it, is so that we want to reproduce.  it's basic science. 

my mother feels that casual sex should be like "going to dinner".  it doesn't matter if people just do it to do it.  she also says people want to have sex to have sex, and it stops there (whereas I believe people want to to have children).  my mother also believes that you shouldn't have to marry to have sex a/o live together. and that people shouldn't be stuck with just one lover for the rest of their lives.  I ask her if she condones polygamy, and she does not.  she believes that people can just casually have sex with anyone they care about, and not have to own up to any commitment.

who is correct?!  am I to conservative when it comes to this?  is my mother too liberal? 
You. No. Yes.

One simple fact, backed by secular statistics: your philosophy (i.e. the Church's) has no fall out.  The fall out from your mother's is legion.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tikhon.of.Colorado
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,363



« Reply #4 on: July 19, 2010, 11:50:52 AM »

I had an interesting debate with my mother about what sex is.  I know I'm just 15, but I know enough from TV, school, and my four pregnant friends.  you see, my mother and I have DRASTICALLY different views of sex.  I believe that sex is how two devoted people consumate their marriage, sortof "sealing the deal".  this means that their together, they've become one.  I also believe that the reason sex feels good, and we want to do it, is so that we want to reproduce.  it's basic science. 

my mother feels that casual sex should be like "going to dinner".  it doesn't matter if people just do it to do it.  she also says people want to have sex to have sex, and it stops there (whereas I believe people want to to have children).  my mother also believes that you shouldn't have to marry to have sex a/o live together. and that people shouldn't be stuck with just one lover for the rest of their lives.  I ask her if she condones polygamy, and she does not.  she believes that people can just casually have sex with anyone they care about, and not have to own up to any commitment.

who is correct?!  am I to conservative when it comes to this?  is my mother too liberal? 
You. No. Yes.

One simple fact, backed by secular statistics: your philosophy (i.e. the Church's) has no fall out.  The fall out from your mother's is legion.
thank you Grin 
Logged

"It is true that I am not always faithful, but I never lose courage, I leave myself in the Arms of Our Lord." - St. Thérèse of Lisieux
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 19, 2010, 12:19:32 PM »

As far as I understand, the Orthodox worldview does not know the concept of the so-called "sex." There definitely is the concept of marriage, which includes marital relationships, i.e. the arousal, the erection (in males and females), the copulation, the ejaculation, the climax, etc. Also, there are concepts of fornication and adultery (same as above except these events happen to people who are not married to each other).
Logged

Love never fails.
EofK
Mrs. Y
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 3,976


lolcat addict


« Reply #6 on: July 19, 2010, 12:53:42 PM »

As far as I understand, the Orthodox worldview does not know the concept of the so-called "sex." There definitely is the concept of marriage, which includes marital relationships, i.e. the arousal, the erection (in males and females), the copulation, the ejaculation, the climax, etc. Also, there are concepts of fornication and adultery (same as above except these events happen to people who are not married to each other).

It seems to me the Orthodox view takes into account the whole of marriage and doesn't try to dissect marriage into emtional intimacy versus physical intimacy.  Sex, like Heorhij explains, is part of the whole and not something that can be extracted or isolated.  It seems to me that when a person tries to isolate physical intimacy and claim that sex can be casual, someone in the couple is going to expect more and be deeply hurt.  Furthermore, I think it's pretty selfish to expect a partner to gratify physical desires and then just go away. 
Logged

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. -- Douglas Adams
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #7 on: July 19, 2010, 03:02:11 PM »

Sex is for unity, not just procreation. Otherwise your idea of sex is correct IMO.

Your mother is basically a hedonist.
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 19, 2010, 04:04:36 PM »


Your mother is basically a hedonist.
I don't think this is the place for "Yo mama" jokes. Roll Eyes
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #9 on: July 19, 2010, 04:35:04 PM »


Your mother is basically a hedonist.
I don't think this is the place for "Yo mama" jokes. Roll Eyes
In context, it's quite clear that Quinault is not making a joke.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #10 on: July 19, 2010, 05:10:15 PM »


Your mother is basically a hedonist.
I don't think this is the place for "Yo mama" jokes. Roll Eyes
In context, it's quite clear that Quinault is not making a joke.
It's also clear that Jetavan was.
Logged
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 967



« Reply #11 on: July 19, 2010, 05:15:30 PM »

It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.
Logged
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 967



« Reply #12 on: July 19, 2010, 05:16:50 PM »

^ joke
Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #13 on: July 19, 2010, 05:23:21 PM »


Your mother is basically a hedonist.
I don't think this is the place for "Yo mama" jokes. Roll Eyes
In context, it's quite clear that Quinault is not making a joke.
It's also clear that Jetavan was.
And also that this thread is a very serious issue for the OP, and should be treated seriously.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Tikhon.of.Colorado
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,363



« Reply #14 on: July 19, 2010, 09:04:47 PM »

Sex is for unity, not just procreation. Otherwise your idea of sex is correct IMO.

Your mother is basically a hedonist.
exactly, and this is what I tell her.  sex creates a bond between people.  it can't be as simple or casual as "going out to dinner".
Logged

"It is true that I am not always faithful, but I never lose courage, I leave myself in the Arms of Our Lord." - St. Thérèse of Lisieux
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #15 on: July 19, 2010, 09:12:59 PM »

Although I am sure it is difficult, I would avoid talking to her about this issue. It sounds like you have a good grasp of how to see sex. Continuing to discuss this issue could put you into a position to be disrespectful to your mother. Respect doesn't mean that you have to agree with someone. Just keep the knowledge in the back of your head that your mother comes to most issues from the position of hedonism and filter her "advice" that way. You are not obligated to do what your mother espouses, but you do need to maintain respect towards her.

Growing up I had a difficult time respecting my mother. I was angry that she wasn't the mom I thought she was "supposed to be." I lived my life comparing the mother I had, to the mother I thought I should have. I had the mother I was supposed to have. Arguing with my mom so she could understand what was "right" was only hurting my relationship with her. As an adult now I maintain respect for my mother. I listen and don't argue, if she asks me if I agree I will politely tell her why I do not. But if she doesn't ask, I don't tell her why/how I disagree. There is an amount of saluting the office that you have to do. She is your mother, she always will be. Pray for her, don't try and change how she thinks. This is a great practice in humility and obedience. You will have to discern what to ignore respectfully, and what to obey. She can't make you behave as a hedonist. She can make you do the dishes Wink

A child is a gift to the parents and it is a heavy responsibility, you have a lot more power then you realize. We want to think that as mothers we are affecting all the change/growth. The reality is quite different, a child teaches the parent more then the parent teaches the child. You can be a good influence by doing less arguing and behaving well  laugh Grin
« Last Edit: July 19, 2010, 09:31:57 PM by Quinault » Logged
Tikhon.of.Colorado
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,363



« Reply #16 on: July 19, 2010, 09:24:35 PM »

Although I am sure it is difficult, I would avoid talking to her about this issue. It sounds like you have a good grasp of how to see sex. Continuing to discuss this issue could put you into a position to be disrespectful to your mother. Respect doesn't mean that you have to agree with someone. Just keep the knowledge in the back of your head that your mother comes to most issues from the position of hedonism and filter her "advice" that way. You are not obligated to do what your mother espouses, but you do need to maintain respect towards her.

Growing up I had a difficult time respecting my mother. I was angry that she wasn't the mom I thought she was "supposed to be." I lived my life comparing the mother I had to the mother I thought I should have. I had the mother I was supposed to have. Arguing with my mom so she understand what was "right" was only hurting my relationship with her. As an adult now I maintain respect for my mother. I listen and don't argue, if she asks me if I agree I will politely tell her why I do not. But if she doesn't ask, I don't tell her otherwise. There is an amount of saluting the office that you have to do. She is your mother, she always will be. Pray for her, don't try and change how she thinks. This is a great practice in humility and obedience. You will have to discern what to ignore respectfully, and what to obey. She can't make you behave as a hedonist. She can make you do the dishes Wink
I can relate to this, totally.  I confess, I envy others when they complain about what their parents won't let them do, how they make them be home by 9pm, how they drag them to Church, etc.  but I do need to accept my mother for who she is.  I suppose this is easier when you don't live with your mother 24/7 anymore. 
Logged

"It is true that I am not always faithful, but I never lose courage, I leave myself in the Arms of Our Lord." - St. Thérèse of Lisieux
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #17 on: July 19, 2010, 09:29:23 PM »

It is to some extent easier AND harder. My mother makes less and less sense to me as I grow older. There is more room for her to be offended since I am not following her example in parenting with my children now or her example in how to be a Godly wife. So it is easier for me to offend her (and her me) now then it was when I was younger and living at home. She thinks herself an expert on marriage and parenting so I get a lot of bad unsolicited advice. Roll Eyes I grieve more now for what she is lacking. I can see how much happier she would/could be if she could just re-orient her world so that she isn't the center/focal point.

« Last Edit: July 19, 2010, 09:35:00 PM by Quinault » Logged
Tikhon.of.Colorado
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,363



« Reply #18 on: July 19, 2010, 09:36:43 PM »

It is to some extent easier AND harder. My mother makes less and less sense to me as I grow older. And there is more room for her to be offended since I am not following her example in parenting with my children now. So it is easier for me to offend her (and her me) now then it was when I was younger and living at home.



well, I guess that goes to show us, our mothers are only people.  not quite the superheros they were when we were 5 Smiley 
I'm just afraid that my mother will one day find out how I feel about abortion.  she gets very...heated...to say the least when it comes to that.  for example, when I was going to a Catholic church (before ever going into an EO Church) my dad mentioned to my mom that I wanted to take catechism classes or join a Catholic youth group.  he assurred me she wouldn't care, but it was not so.  she yelled at me about how "wrong" they are.  and she asks "don't you believe that a woman can do anything she wants with her body?!"  I said yes.  then she responds "well then, they would never accept you."   Cry 

I really thank God for leading me to Orthodoxy, as my continued flirtation with Catholicism would have eventually pulled apart my mother and myself.  now, I tell her what the Church believes.  if she doesn't agree, she's pretty vocal.  but I think that she realizes that I'm at the age where I can make SOME of my own decisions.
Logged

"It is true that I am not always faithful, but I never lose courage, I leave myself in the Arms of Our Lord." - St. Thérèse of Lisieux
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,095


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #19 on: July 19, 2010, 10:05:03 PM »

I have to develop the language more fully, but I'm starting to describe the situation of many Orthodox in the world viz-a-viz sex (and love, for that matter) as being victims of a sort of Stockholm Syndrome (not to belittle those who have undergone the terror of being captives in the flesh, mind you).  When surrounded with a perverted view of love, friendship, and sex/sexuality, many have begun to side with the captor to the point of animosity toward the traditional Orthodox POV.  It is a sad situation.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2010, 10:05:21 PM by Fr. George » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #20 on: November 06, 2010, 04:54:49 AM »

Sex is form of lust.

Sex in marriage is low form of lust, same like nice tea, fresh water in hot day etc.
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 06, 2010, 08:29:45 AM »

Sex is form of lust.

Sex in marriage is low form of lust, same like nice tea, fresh water in hot day etc.

I would say sex in marriage is a higher (more self-sacrificial) form of lust.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2010, 08:30:17 AM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,095


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #22 on: November 06, 2010, 08:51:03 AM »

Sex in marriage is not generally a form of lust.  Goodness gracious, people.  It can be used to diminish lust in one's life, it can be detrimental if it is too self-centered; but if the people's hearts are in the right place, I believe that lust has nothing to do with it.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 06, 2010, 09:25:28 AM »

Sex in marriage is not generally a form of lust.  Goodness gracious, people.  It can be used to diminish lust in one's life, it can be detrimental if it is too self-centered; but if the people's hearts are in the right place, I believe that lust has nothing to do with it.
"Lust" these days is used mostly to refer to sinful, or degrading, passions; but I'm using the original meaning of the word: "pleasure, desire".

From John Foxe, 1500s: "For he and his Father, who are all one, giveth abundantly of all goodness unto all men, and upbraideth nobody for his unworthiness. But if we intend to obtain of Him, we must, all doubtfulness (as I said before) put apart, with a sure confidence of his mercy, ask of him what we would have...praying [asking] Jesus, that we all may lust for that which is most pleasing to him."
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
KBN1
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: EO
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 888



« Reply #24 on: November 06, 2010, 01:50:53 PM »

Although I am sure it is difficult, I would avoid talking to her about this issue.

Trevor, I would expand this advice to include most anyone who has views similar to your mother.  Such teachings about sex can be very subtle and seductive and have a way of "making sense".  Don't start, or participate in arguments though.  Let your own life be your proof. 
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 06, 2010, 02:36:57 PM »

Sex in marriage is not generally a form of lust.  Goodness gracious, people.  It can be used to diminish lust in one's life, it can be detrimental if it is too self-centered; but if the people's hearts are in the right place, I believe that lust has nothing to do with it.

Father George - I agree 100%. Well said.
Logged

Love never fails.
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #26 on: November 06, 2010, 08:17:34 PM »

Sex is form of lust.

Sex in marriage is low form of lust, same like nice tea, fresh water in hot day etc.

I would say sex in marriage is a higher (more self-sacrificial) form of lust.

“Low” – mean “small”. It easier to diagnose and corrupting us less. So, “low form” of lust.

Define “higher” pls.
you mean “high” more complicated and sophisticated?
“more self-sacrificial” – I not get it at all.



We get pleasure eating food (even simple bread) – it is low form of lust, for it can grow and lead into high lust.

It is same as illness, low form, may be hard to diagnose but easy to treat, could be well controlled and some time it not effecting our wellbeing any way.  High form of illness (chronic condition) – deferent , it is could be deadly.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #27 on: November 06, 2010, 08:22:33 PM »

God commanded people to multiply while creating us in a way that sex is the key to people's multiplication. You say sex in marriage is a sin so according to your logic God commanded us to sin. Did I miss something?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #28 on: November 06, 2010, 08:59:26 PM »

God commanded people to multiply while creating us in a way that sex is the key to people's multiplication. You say sex in marriage is a sin so according to your logic God commanded us to sin. Did I miss something?
1. Do not mix yourself with Adam in Edem. befor fall.


Psalm 50:7(51:5-6)
« Last Edit: November 06, 2010, 09:06:52 PM by Alive » Logged
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #29 on: November 06, 2010, 09:10:56 PM »

God commanded people to multiply while creating us in a way that sex is the key to people's multiplication. You say sex in marriage is a sin so according to your logic God commanded us to sin. Did I miss something?

2. Multiply and have sex – not synonyms.
Logged
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,590



« Reply #30 on: November 06, 2010, 11:05:57 PM »

Sex in marriage is not generally a form of lust.  Goodness gracious, people.  It can be used to diminish lust in one's life, it can be detrimental if it is too self-centered; but if the people's hearts are in the right place, I believe that lust has nothing to do with it.

Father George - I agree 100%. Well said.

My golly Heorhij, I agree, too.  If we both agree, it must be the truth  laugh
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 07, 2010, 04:01:18 AM »

Sex is form of lust.

Sex in marriage is low form of lust, same like nice tea, fresh water in hot day etc.

I would say sex in marriage is a higher (more self-sacrificial) form of lust.

“Low” – mean “small”. It easier to diagnose and corrupting us less. So, “low form” of lust.

Define “higher” pls.
you mean “high” more complicated and sophisticated?
“more self-sacrificial” – I not get it at all.
By "higher", I mean "more conducive to theosis".
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #32 on: November 07, 2010, 04:28:04 AM »

By "higher", I mean "more conducive to theosis".

Strongly disagree.
No lust can be conducive to theosis.

Such form lust as sex in the marriage same as pleasure from basic food.
It is have minimum harm (to no harm) if well managed.

But I not see what way flesh may be “conducive to theosis”.

Spirit – gives life, flesh no use. (John 6:63)
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #33 on: November 07, 2010, 04:48:25 AM »

But I not see what way flesh may be “conducive to theosis”.

Spirit – gives life, flesh no use. (John 6:63)

I do not think that this passage can be understood in the way you are presenting. We see the Gospel written with our eyes, we hear the Gospel preached with our ears, and we share the Gospel with our words and actions. These are all things accomplished through our flesh. The body can be used for good, and thus we cannot take the words of Jesus in this passage in a woodenly literal way to mean that the flesh is really of no value.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #34 on: November 07, 2010, 05:05:42 AM »

It is to some extent easier AND harder. My mother makes less and less sense to me as I grow older. And there is more room for her to be offended since I am not following her example in parenting with my children now. So it is easier for me to offend her (and her me) now then it was when I was younger and living at home.



well, I guess that goes to show us, our mothers are only people.  not quite the superheros they were when we were 5 Smiley 
I'm just afraid that my mother will one day find out how I feel about abortion.  she gets very...heated...to say the least when it comes to that.  for example, when I was going to a Catholic church (before ever going into an EO Church) my dad mentioned to my mom that I wanted to take catechism classes or join a Catholic youth group.  he assurred me she wouldn't care, but it was not so.  she yelled at me about how "wrong" they are.  and she asks "don't you believe that a woman can do anything she wants with her body?!"  I said yes.  then she responds "well then, they would never accept you."   Cry 

I really thank God for leading me to Orthodoxy, as my continued flirtation with Catholicism would have eventually pulled apart my mother and myself.  now, I tell her what the Church believes.  if she doesn't agree, she's pretty vocal.  but I think that she realizes that I'm at the age where I can make SOME of my own decisions.
Except that the Orthodox Church believes the exact same things concerning sexuality as the Catholic Church, with the exception of contraception, but that is a very recent change in the Orthodox Church's practices (but that can be discussed in the Catholic-Orthodox forum - everyone is free to disagree with me).

It seems strange that she should be less angry about Orthodoxy. My parents are the same way. Orthodoxy would have been a much easier pill for them to swallow.
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #35 on: November 07, 2010, 05:40:56 AM »

Except that the Orthodox Church believes the exact same things concerning sexuality as the Catholic Church, with the exception of contraception, but that is a very recent change in the Orthodox Church's practices (but that can be discussed in the Catholic-Orthodox forum - everyone is free to disagree with me).

It seems strange that she should be less angry about Orthodoxy. My parents are the same way. Orthodoxy would have been a much easier pill for them to swallow.
1.   Not catholic, Latinas, Romans, Popists etc….no way you people are Catholics, we are, not you. Since when Rome – is whole world?
2.   We not believe.
3.   No way Orthodox(real Catholic) present sex and contraception as it presented by Pop.  You people promote sex with Jesus (Teresa of Ávila, Thérèse of Lisieux etc)
Logged
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #36 on: November 07, 2010, 05:45:37 AM »

But I not see what way flesh may be “conducive to theosis”.

Spirit – gives life, flesh no use. (John 6:63)

I do not think that this passage can be understood in the way you are presenting. We see the Gospel written with our eyes, we hear the Gospel preached with our ears, and we share the Gospel with our words and actions. These are all things accomplished through our flesh. The body can be used for good, and thus we cannot take the words of Jesus in this passage in a woodenly literal way to mean that the flesh is really of no value.

We have talk about theosis and flesh. Precisely - Sex and theosis.
So phrase above was related to Sex and theosis issue. Not about can we use flesh as good tools or not.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #37 on: November 07, 2010, 06:17:58 AM »

We have talk about theosis and flesh. Precisely - Sex and theosis.
So phrase above was related to Sex and theosis issue. Not about can we use flesh as good tools or not.

I suppose that's where we diverge, because I don't see sex as lust, but rather (in the proper context and with the proper motives) as a healthy and natural expression of love between two people. St. John Chrysostom spoke of sex in a positive light in a number of passages, sometimes even mentioning the "pleasure" in the act:

"And how become they one flesh? As if you should take away the purest part of gold, and mingle it with other gold; so in truth here also the woman as it were receiving the richest part fused by pleasure, nourishes it and cherishes it, and withal contributing her own share, restores it back a Man." - St. John Chrysostom, Homily 12 on Colossians
« Last Edit: November 07, 2010, 06:18:47 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #38 on: November 07, 2010, 06:21:53 AM »

I might also add that the Church Fathers saw sexual relations within marriage as a way of avoiding lust, not as an indulging of lust. So to did St. Paul, I think:

"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband." - 1 Cor. 7:1-3
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #39 on: November 07, 2010, 07:17:53 AM »

We have talk about theosis and flesh. Precisely - Sex and theosis.
So phrase above was related to Sex and theosis issue. Not about can we use flesh as good tools or not.

I suppose that's where we diverge, because I don't see sex as lust, but rather (in the proper context and with the proper motives) as a healthy and natural expression of love between two people. St. John Chrysostom spoke of sex in a positive light in a number of passages, sometimes even mentioning the "pleasure" in the act:

"And how become they one flesh? As if you should take away the purest part of gold, and mingle it with other gold; so in truth here also the woman as it were receiving the richest part fused by pleasure, nourishes it and cherishes it, and withal contributing her own share, restores it back a Man." - St. John Chrysostom, Homily 12 on Colossians


 
1.   Ap. Paul not refer to lust but adultery.
2.   St. John , with all my respect have no sexual experience, and would not teach about nature of sexual intercourse publicly …. even then it could be his personal theological opinion.

Let see what St. John speaking about in real:

What way one flesh occur?
Same way if you obtain most pure gold and mix it with other gold. So here we have some thing simular….. wife receive “melted like” fruit substance in hit pleasure moment, than feed it and keep it warm, give to it all needed and produce (new) man.  And baby serve as some sort of bridge , so it is three combining in one flesh, for child connecting one side with other.



amour à trois Huh??  no way St. John say it.



« Last Edit: November 07, 2010, 07:21:07 AM by Alive » Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #40 on: November 07, 2010, 07:43:54 AM »

1.   Ap. Paul not refer to lust but adultery.

It's clear from the context that St. Paul is talking about lust, not adultery. Adultery is something that would come after someone got married, whereas St. Paul was saying that this thing that he was talking about (avoiding lust) was a reason to get married in the first place. His thought is: it's good to remain celibate, but if it comes down to you choosing between 1) burning with lust or 2) getting married, then you should marry. And obviously it wouldn't help you avoid fornication (ie. lust) if you were married but not having sex: if anything, it would exacerbate the problem.

Quote
2.   St. John , with all my respect have no sexual experience, and would not teach about nature of sexual intercourse publicly …. even then it could be his personal theological opinion.

It could be his personal opinion, except that, as I understand it, it's what the Church as a whole teaches. To quote another Church Father:

"Let no one think however that herein we depreciate marriage as an institution. We are well aware that it is not a stranger to God's blessing. But since the common instincts of mankind can plead sufficiently on its behalf, instincts which prompt by a spontaneous bias to take the high road of marriage for the procreation of children" - St. Gregory Nyssa, On Virginity, 8

St. Gregory here not only says that marriage is blessed by God and a "high road," but talks about how humans naturally ("common instincts") are attracted to one another. Since he goes on to talk about the procreation of children I believe we can infer that St. Gregory is not just talking about desire for companionship or love, but also sexual attraction.

Also, according to Orthodox epistemology one does not have to have direct experience of everything to understand the nature of man. One need not experience homosexuality to understand it, or the use of contraception, or what it's like to be someone of the opposite gender. Now, certainly experience counts for a lot, I am not arguing with that. However, when the tarnished image of God in someone is cleaned up, and they make great spiritual strides, they begin to understand the deeper mysteries (human nature, salvation, etc.) And I think that many people would agree that, of all the Church Fathers, St. John was one of the best at being pastorally sensitive and understanding humans as they really are in reality (not just in theory).

Quote
Let see what St. John speaking about in real:

What way one flesh occur?
Same way if you obtain most pure gold and mix it with other gold. So here we have some thing simular….. wife receive “melted like” fruit substance in hit pleasure moment, than feed it and keep it warm, give to it all needed and produce (new) man.  And baby serve as some sort of bridge , so it is three combining in one flesh, for child connecting one side with other.


amour à trois Huh??  no way St. John say it.

No, St. John was talking about the child being a bridge between the two parents (and not a necessary one for marriage to have meaning, as St. John also says). He wasn't being literal, nor do I see how he could have been literal...?
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #41 on: November 07, 2010, 07:52:54 AM »

1.   Ap. Paul not refer to lust but adultery.

It's clear from the context that St. Paul is talking about lust, not adultery. Adultery is something that would come after someone got married, whereas St. Paul was saying that this thing that he was talking about (avoiding lust) was a reason to get married in the first place. His thought is: it's good to remain celibate, but if it comes down to you choosing between 1) burning with lust or 2) getting married, then you should marry. And obviously it wouldn't help you avoid fornication (ie. lust) if you were married but not having sex: if anything, it would exacerbate the problem.

Paul talking about sexual intercourse. You may call it any way you like.

Lust – is not just sexual desire.
Lust is any form of flesh pleasure desire.

Of course you may disagree, and build your own world of meaning, then we have no thing in common to talk about.

Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #42 on: November 07, 2010, 08:00:52 AM »

Paul talking about sexual intercourse. You may call it any way you like.

Lust – is not just sexual desire.
Lust is any form of flesh pleasure desire.

Of course you may disagree, and build your own world of meaning, then we have no thing in common to talk about.

You're not dealing with the points that I'm making, you're just restating your opinion. Sts. Gregory the Dialogist, Augustine, Jerome and Caesarius of Arles may have agreed with you, but they'd have been incorrect. And Orthodoxy certainly doesn't teach that "any form of flesh pleasure desire" is lust.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2010, 08:03:05 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #43 on: November 07, 2010, 08:02:31 AM »

You regulary speculating on Church Fathers as  well you twisting my statements.

I do not disrespect marriage.

We talk her about sexual intercourse as form of pleasure.
Any flesh pressure is lust, food, sex etc.
No matter you excepting it or not.

Flesh and blood do not belong to Heavenly Kingdom.
Any pleasure form things which not belong to Heavenly Kingdom and it  desire such pleasure called lust.
Some lust – insignificant and could be easy managed, some deadly.

You may ignore it , but it would not change it.


Logged
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #44 on: November 07, 2010, 08:04:31 AM »

Paul talking about sexual intercourse. You may call it any way you like.

Lust – is not just sexual desire.
Lust is any form of flesh pleasure desire.

Of course you may disagree, and build your own world of meaning, then we have no thing in common to talk about.

You're not dealing with the points that I'm making, you're just restating your opinion. And Orthodoxy certainly doesn't teach that "any form of flesh pleasure desire" is lust.

Sorry for you, as you not familiar with orthodoxy then…
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #45 on: November 07, 2010, 08:07:00 AM »

You regulary speculating on Church Fathers as  well you twisting my statements.

I do not disrespect marriage.

We talk her about sexual intercourse as form of pleasure.
Any flesh pressure is lust, food, sex etc.
No matter you excepting it or not.

Flesh and blood do not belong to Heavenly Kingdom.
Any pleasure form things which not belong to Heavenly Kingdom and it  desire such pleasure called lust.
Some lust – insignificant and could be easy managed, some deadly.

You may ignore it , but it would not change it.


Then build a case from the Church Fathers and the Scripture, showing that the Church really teaches things like: "Any flesh pressure is lust" and "Any pleasure form things which not belong to Heavenly Kingdom and it desire such pleasure called lust" and "Lust is any form of flesh pleasure desire"?
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #46 on: November 07, 2010, 08:19:41 AM »

Then build a case from the Church Fathers and the Scripture, showing that the Church really teaches things like: "Any flesh pressure is lust" and "Any pleasure form things which not belong to Heavenly Kingdom and it desire such pleasure called lust" and "Lust is any form of flesh pleasure desire"?

I cant help your ignorance.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #47 on: November 07, 2010, 08:35:42 AM »

Then build a case from the Church Fathers and the Scripture, showing that the Church really teaches things like: "Any flesh pressure is lust" and "Any pleasure form things which not belong to Heavenly Kingdom and it desire such pleasure called lust" and "Lust is any form of flesh pleasure desire"?

I cant help your ignorance.

"For he who sins, in the degree in which he sins, becomes worse and is of less estimation than before; and he who has been overcome by base pleasures, has now licentiousness wholly attached to him. Wherefore he who commits fornication is wholly dead to God, and is abandoned by the Word as a dead body by the spirit. For what is holy, as is right, abhors to be polluted. But it is always lawful for the pure to touch the pure." - St. Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2, 10

Lust is wrong, fornication is wrong, but attraction and desire are not: "it is always lawful for the pure to touch the pure". And another relevant passage:

"Tell me not that the body is a cause of sin. For if the body is a cause of sin, why does not a dead body sin? Put a sword in the right hand of one just dead, and no murder takes place. Let beauties of every kind pass before a youth just dead, and no impure desire arises. Why? Because the body sins not of itself, but the soul through the body. The body is an instrument, and, as it were, a garment and robe of the soul: and if by this latter it be given over to fornication, it becomes defiled: but if it dwell with a holy soul, it becomes a temple of the Holy Ghost." - St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 4, 23
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #48 on: November 07, 2010, 09:08:47 AM »

Ok, last post of quotes, just wanted to give some more passages from St. John Chrysostom that I found in the book Women and Men in the Early Church by David C. Ford…

“Blame not natural desire. Natural desire was bestowed with a view to marriage; it was given with a view to the procreation of children, not with a view to adultery and corruption.” - Homily 2 on Ephesians

“For truly, truly this love is stronger than any tyranny; other desires may be strong, but this one never fades. This love is deeply planted within our nature. Unnoticed by us, it attracts the bodies of men and women to each other, because in the beginning woman came forth from man, and now from man and woman both men and women proceed.” - Homily 20 on Ephesians

“And while thou, fresh from the company of your own wife, darest not pray, although this is no blame at all; do you lift up your hands, fresh from reviling and insult, which brings after it no less than hell, before you have well cleansed yourself? And how do you not shudder? Tell me. Have you not heard Paul, saying, ‘Marriage is honorable, and the bed undefiled?’ (Heb. 13:4) But if on rising from the undefiled bed, you dare not draw near in prayer, how do you coming from the bed of the devil call on that awful and terrible name? For it is truly the devil's bed, to wallow in insults and reviling. And like some wicked adulterer, wrath dallies with us in great delight, casting into us deadly seed, and making us give birth to diabolical enmity, and doing all things in a way opposite to marriage. For whereas marriage causes the two to become one flesh, wrath severs into many parts them that were united, and cleaves and cuts in pieces the very soul.” - Homily 51 on Matthew
« Last Edit: November 07, 2010, 09:10:40 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #49 on: November 07, 2010, 09:21:24 AM »

1. Do not mix yourself with Adam in Edem. befor fall.
Psalm 50:7(51:5-6)

Why? I also don't see the relation between your answer and that quote.

2. Multiply and have sex – not synonyms.

We don't use agamogenesis.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #50 on: November 07, 2010, 09:29:14 AM »

Ok, last post of quotes, just wanted to give some more passages

Sorry for you choose to constantly twisting meaning and speculation on text.
Logged
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #51 on: November 07, 2010, 09:46:35 AM »

1. Do not mix yourself with Adam in Edem. befor fall.
Psalm 50:7(51:5-6)

Why? I also don't see the relation between your answer and that quote.


to bad for you.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #52 on: November 07, 2010, 09:50:32 AM »

Quote from: Proverbs 5, 15-20
Drink water from your own cistern, running water from your own well. Should your springs overflow in the streets, your streams of water in the public squares? Let them be yours alone, never to be shared with strangers. May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. A loving doe, a graceful deer — may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be intoxicated with her love. Why, my son, be intoxicated with another man’s wife? Why embrace the bosom of a wayward woman?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #53 on: November 07, 2010, 09:58:12 AM »

Then build a case from the Church Fathers and the Scripture, showing that the Church really teaches things like: "Any flesh pressure is lust" and "Any pleasure form things which not belong to Heavenly Kingdom and it desire such pleasure called lust" and "Lust is any form of flesh pleasure desire"?

I cant help your ignorance.

"For he who sins, in the degree in which he sins, becomes worse and is of less estimation than before; and he who has been overcome by base pleasures, has now licentiousness wholly attached to him. Wherefore he who commits fornication is wholly dead to God, and is abandoned by the Word as a dead body by the spirit. For what is holy, as is right, abhors to be polluted. But it is always lawful for the pure to touch the pure." - St. Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2, 10

Lust is wrong, fornication is wrong, but attraction and desire are not: "it is always lawful for the pure to touch the pure". And another relevant passage:
St. Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2, 10:

Some people consider own sins as pleasure granted by nature……
…… But in siner, whom constantly get exited by emotional desire, constantly live defect of  intemperance. For any one with luck of self control is dead for God. Logos and Holy Spirit left him. Hi is corp. It is natural. Holy not wish to be touched by filth. Clean only stay in touch with clean.



man you in deception.....
« Last Edit: November 07, 2010, 10:01:37 AM by Alive » Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,529


WWW
« Reply #54 on: November 07, 2010, 11:36:27 AM »

Sex is form of lust.

Sex in marriage is low form of lust, same like nice tea, fresh water in hot day etc.

Not everyone was meant to experience sex.  If you have submitted yourself to that description, you can express what you just said just don't expect to unilaterally impose your views on those who have experienced sex.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,726


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #55 on: November 07, 2010, 04:57:22 PM »

Then build a case from the Church Fathers and the Scripture, showing that the Church really teaches things like: "Any flesh pressure is lust" and "Any pleasure form things which not belong to Heavenly Kingdom and it desire such pleasure called lust" and "Lust is any form of flesh pleasure desire"?

I cant help your ignorance.

"For he who sins, in the degree in which he sins, becomes worse and is of less estimation than before; and he who has been overcome by base pleasures, has now licentiousness wholly attached to him. Wherefore he who commits fornication is wholly dead to God, and is abandoned by the Word as a dead body by the spirit. For what is holy, as is right, abhors to be polluted. But it is always lawful for the pure to touch the pure." - St. Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2, 10

Lust is wrong, fornication is wrong, but attraction and desire are not: "it is always lawful for the pure to touch the pure". And another relevant passage:
St. Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2, 10:

Some people consider own sins as pleasure granted by nature……
…… But in siner, whom constantly get exited by emotional desire, constantly live defect of  intemperance. For any one with luck of self control is dead for God. Logos and Holy Spirit left him. Hi is corp. It is natural. Holy not wish to be touched by filth. Clean only stay in touch with clean.



man you in deception.....
Have you more fathers to cite than just Clement of Alexandria? Before you accuse someone of being deceived, you first have to set the case for what is truth. So far the only case I've seen you make is statement and restatement of your own dogmatic opinions. Unless you're God, your own opinions don't count as truth per se.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #56 on: November 07, 2010, 05:08:29 PM »

Have you more fathers to cite than just Clement of Alexandria? Before you accuse someone of being deceived, you first have to set the case for what is truth. So far the only case I've seen you make is statement and restatement of your own dogmatic opinions. Unless you're God, your own opinions don't count as truth per se.

I didn't think that his alternative translation contradicted what I said anyway... but then someone like me who is deceived won't actually realise it I suppose  Cool
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #57 on: November 07, 2010, 05:14:13 PM »

Christ enjoyed what he ate and drank when he was on earth. Was Christ "lusting"? The wedding wine in Cana anyone?
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #58 on: November 07, 2010, 06:31:28 PM »

Sex in marriage is not generally a form of lust.  Goodness gracious, people.  It can be used to diminish lust in one's life, it can be detrimental if it is too self-centered; but if the people's hearts are in the right place, I believe that lust has nothing to do with it.

Father George - I agree 100%. Well said.

My golly Heorhij, I agree, too.  If we both agree, it must be the truth  laugh

Hear, hear.  laugh
Logged

Love never fails.
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #59 on: November 07, 2010, 07:13:47 PM »

Then build a case from the Church Fathers and the Scripture, showing that the Church really teaches things like: "Any flesh pressure is lust" and "Any pleasure form things which not belong to Heavenly Kingdom and it desire such pleasure called lust" and "Lust is any form of flesh pleasure desire"?

I cant help your ignorance.

"For he who sins, in the degree in which he sins, becomes worse and is of less estimation than before; and he who has been overcome by base pleasures, has now licentiousness wholly attached to him. Wherefore he who commits fornication is wholly dead to God, and is abandoned by the Word as a dead body by the spirit. For what is holy, as is right, abhors to be polluted. But it is always lawful for the pure to touch the pure." - St. Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2, 10

Lust is wrong, fornication is wrong, but attraction and desire are not: "it is always lawful for the pure to touch the pure". And another relevant passage:
St. Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2, 10:

Some people consider own sins as pleasure granted by nature……
…… But in siner, whom constantly get exited by emotional desire, constantly live defect of  intemperance. For any one with luck of self control is dead for God. Logos and Holy Spirit left him. Hi is corp. It is natural. Holy not wish to be touched by filth. Clean only stay in touch with clean.



man you in deception.....


















Have you more fathers to cite than just Clement of Alexandria? Before you accuse someone of being deceived, you first have to set the case for what is truth. So far the only case I've seen you make is statement and restatement of your own dogmatic opinions. Unless you're God, your own opinions don't count as truth per se.



1. First Man posted St. John text with wrong interpretation, then St. Clement… it is not enough for you? It was not my quotations, I just point on wrong interpretations and speculation.

2. It is not “dogmatic”. Sorry for you if you mix “dogmatic” with “anthropological” and “ascetical” matters…..

3. If you do not familiar with fundamental basic of orthodox moral and anthropology and resist it think seven times before present yourself as orthodox.

5.   man admit that he disagree about presented text are presenting correct meaning. So , he admit that he use text in deferent manner.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2010, 07:19:21 PM by Alive » Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #60 on: November 07, 2010, 07:33:41 PM »

1. First Man posted St. John text with wrong interpretation,

If it was wrong then why didn't you demonstrate that, rather than trying to argue that a monk couldn't really understand things like sex?

Quote
5.   man admit that he disagree about presented text are presenting correct meaning. So , he admit that he use text in deferent manner.

What are you going on about?
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #61 on: November 07, 2010, 08:05:40 PM »

Christ enjoyed what he ate and drank when he was on earth. Was Christ "lusting"? The wedding wine in Cana anyone?

And now you speak for Jesus?

"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink". (Jesus Christ)

Sound like enjoy for you?




Quote
Maria: “they have no wine”
Jesus: “it is not our concern”

Do not mix God tolerance to our sin and defects with encouragement to lust. 
Logged
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #62 on: November 07, 2010, 08:17:55 PM »


If it was wrong then why didn't you demonstrate that, rather than trying to argue that a monk couldn't really understand things like sex?

Quote
5.   man admit that he disagree about presented text are presenting correct meaning. So , he admit that he use text in deferent manner.

What are you going on about?

I did.

Your presentation of St. John text:
Quote
And how become they one flesh?
As if you should take away the purest part of gold, and mingle it with other gold; so in truth here also the woman as it were receiving the richest part fused by pleasure, nourishes it and cherishes it, and withal contributing her own share, restores it back a Man


My presentation:
What way one flesh occur?
Same way if you obtain most pure gold and mix it with other gold. So here we have some thing simular….. wife receive “melted like” fruit substance in hit pleasure moment, than feed it and keep it warm, give to it all needed and produce (new) man.  And baby serve as some sort of bridge , so it is three combining in one flesh, for child connecting one side with other.




Only St. John refer to sex as “hit pleasure moment” – it all what he say.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,726


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #63 on: November 07, 2010, 10:00:45 PM »

Then build a case from the Church Fathers and the Scripture, showing that the Church really teaches things like: "Any flesh pressure is lust" and "Any pleasure form things which not belong to Heavenly Kingdom and it desire such pleasure called lust" and "Lust is any form of flesh pleasure desire"?

I cant help your ignorance.

"For he who sins, in the degree in which he sins, becomes worse and is of less estimation than before; and he who has been overcome by base pleasures, has now licentiousness wholly attached to him. Wherefore he who commits fornication is wholly dead to God, and is abandoned by the Word as a dead body by the spirit. For what is holy, as is right, abhors to be polluted. But it is always lawful for the pure to touch the pure." - St. Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2, 10

Lust is wrong, fornication is wrong, but attraction and desire are not: "it is always lawful for the pure to touch the pure". And another relevant passage:
St. Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2, 10:

Some people consider own sins as pleasure granted by nature……
…… But in siner, whom constantly get exited by emotional desire, constantly live defect of  intemperance. For any one with luck of self control is dead for God. Logos and Holy Spirit left him. Hi is corp. It is natural. Holy not wish to be touched by filth. Clean only stay in touch with clean.



man you in deception.....


















Have you more fathers to cite than just Clement of Alexandria? Before you accuse someone of being deceived, you first have to set the case for what is truth. So far the only case I've seen you make is statement and restatement of your own dogmatic opinions. Unless you're God, your own opinions don't count as truth per se.



1. First Man posted St. John text with wrong interpretation, then St. Clement… it is not enough for you? It was not my quotations, I just point on wrong interpretations and speculation.

2. It is not “dogmatic”. Sorry for you if you mix “dogmatic” with “anthropological” and “ascetical” matters…..

3. If you do not familiar with fundamental basic of orthodox moral and anthropology and resist it think seven times before present yourself as orthodox.

5.   man admit that he disagree about presented text are presenting correct meaning. So , he admit that he use text in deferent manner.

It seems to me, though, that you're trying to argue from your own authority without having first established your authority by citing outside sources we deem authoritative (e.g., the Holy Fathers). What gives you the authority to judge the Orthodoxy of others when you haven't even demonstrated to us your own Orthodoxy?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #64 on: November 07, 2010, 10:17:03 PM »

Sex in marriage is not generally a form of lust.  Goodness gracious, people.  It can be used to diminish lust in one's life, it can be detrimental if it is too self-centered; but if the people's hearts are in the right place, I believe that lust has nothing to do with it.

Father George - I agree 100%. Well said.

My golly Heorhij, I agree, too.  If we both agree, it must be the truth  laugh

Hear, hear.  laugh
Well it's three, so we can claim infallibility. Tongue
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #65 on: November 07, 2010, 11:05:17 PM »

My golly Heorhij, I agree, too.  If we both agree, it must be the truth  laugh
Hear, hear.  laugh
Well it's three, so we can claim infallibility. Tongue
Caiaphas, Irod and Pilat…
« Last Edit: November 07, 2010, 11:07:53 PM by Alive » Logged
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #66 on: November 07, 2010, 11:16:35 PM »

And do not forget to call anathema on:
 every one who teach about chemical attraction developed due sexual intercourse as is not theoses or goodness but low form of flesh lust tolerated in earthly life.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2010, 11:24:50 PM by Alive » Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #67 on: November 07, 2010, 11:25:28 PM »

Christ enjoyed what he ate and drank when he was on earth. Was Christ "lusting"? The wedding wine in Cana anyone?

And now you speak for Jesus?

"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink". (Jesus Christ)

Sound like enjoy for you?




Quote
Maria: “they have no wine”
Jesus: “it is not our concern”

Do not mix God tolerance to our sin and defects with encouragement to lust. 


You are really reaching to get that interpretation. Not worrying about clothing/food does not mean that you aren't allowed to enjoy them.

By chance are you married Alive?
Logged
authio
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 369



« Reply #68 on: November 07, 2010, 11:33:15 PM »

Christ enjoyed what he ate and drank when he was on earth. Was Christ "lusting"? The wedding wine in Cana anyone?

And now you speak for Jesus?

"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink". (Jesus Christ)

Sound like enjoy for you?




Quote
Maria: “they have no wine”
Jesus: “it is not our concern”

Do not mix God tolerance to our sin and defects with encouragement to lust. 


You are really reaching to get that interpretation. Not worrying about clothing/food does not mean that you aren't allowed to enjoy them.

By chance are you married Alive?

I wonder this, too. 

To your point Alive, even Monastics plan out their meals and celebrations.  They "worry" about what they eat and drink, and like married couples, they are undergoing martyrdom for the sake of the Gospel.
Logged

Christ is risen!
Cristo ha resucitado!
Христос Воскресе!
Χριστός Ανέστη!
 المسيح قام
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #69 on: November 08, 2010, 03:34:46 AM »

Christ enjoyed what he ate and drank when he was on earth. Was Christ "lusting"? The wedding wine in Cana anyone?

And now you speak for Jesus?

"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink". (Jesus Christ)

Sound like enjoy for you?




Quote
Maria: “they have no wine”
Jesus: “it is not our concern”

Do not mix God tolerance to our sin and defects with encouragement to lust. 


You are really reaching to get that interpretation. Not worrying about clothing/food does not mean that you aren't allowed to enjoy them.

By chance are you married Alive?

I wonder this, too. 

To your point Alive, even Monastics plan out their meals and celebrations.  They "worry" about what they eat and drink, and like married couples, they are undergoing martyrdom for the sake of the Gospel.


I do not differentiate monastic from no monastic life more then luck of sexual relation in first one.


 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman with desire has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Second option - look on women without sexual desire.

Same with food.
You may eat with pleasure(voluptuousness) or just eat it.

But if in first case you may run from contacts with female – what desert father did, but you can’t run for eating necessity.


I not sure about sex with no pleasure would work for man…..
So sex deliver pleasure for male other wise it would not work. So sex is voluptuousness any way.
As it is sensuality pleasure – it is voluptuousness any way less or more depending how strongly we attract to it.




About monastic life. Same as no monastic.
Opposition to lust( any kind) – is personal struggle.
For some one it is every day battle, for other time to time… it is personal.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #70 on: November 08, 2010, 05:42:32 AM »

What is you native language? Your thoughts above aren't very clear. It seems like you are saying that sex without pleasure is the goal. I am very sorry for anyone one that believes that they can't enjoy marital sex. Sex is unitive AND procreative, it is not meant for procreation alone. Sex without pleasure is not unifying. And for a woman, sex without pleasure isn't very fun at all. To be quite honest sex without any pleasure for a woman can be downright painful. Men automatically have a "release" when they have sex, women do not. To think that sex without pleasure is the goal is extremely unfair to women. From my point of view a man that doesn't seek to give his wife pleasure in marital relations is in sin since only the desires of the husband are met, and not the wife's desires.

(Mods and Admin; I hope I am not being to explicit here, I just wanted to make sure I understood Alive's perspective)
« Last Edit: November 08, 2010, 05:50:04 AM by Quinault » Logged
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #71 on: November 08, 2010, 06:08:22 AM »

It seems like you are saying that sex without pleasure is the goal.

I never say not point it.
I say opposite, naturally male can’t have with out pleasure. It is basic of physiology.
Logged
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #72 on: November 08, 2010, 06:17:15 AM »

sex without pleasure isn't very fun at all.
You so “American like” , you do not need God, you need “fun” and “pleasure”.

Sex in marriage is form of lust (pleasure tool) which is could be well managed and controlled with minimum harm.

Sound like you have problem with it?
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,204



WWW
« Reply #73 on: November 08, 2010, 08:15:21 AM »

sex without pleasure isn't very fun at all.
You so “American like” , you do not need God, you need “fun” and “pleasure”.

Sex in marriage is form of lust (pleasure tool) which is could be well managed and controlled with minimum harm.

Sound like you have problem with it?


Lust is addiction to pleasure, not pleasure itself, Alive.

It's true that even inside marriage one can become addicted to sex, even with his/her own spouse. It's possible that one puts pleasure above the person. Much of emphasys on pleasure in sex today lead to that. Like all corporal pleasures, there is a real danger of gettin addicted to it, even in the correct context.

But do you remember the warning about not allowing a man who made himself an eunuch to become a priest? It's in the Gospel. Chastity is *not* self-castration, be it physical or psychological. Self-castration, even of the psychological sort, is a sin in itself. We are to be delivered of the dependece on sexual pleasure, and not to become obsessed with avoiding it, which is but another passion, another compulsion.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #74 on: November 08, 2010, 08:57:32 AM »

sex without pleasure isn't very fun at all.
You so “American like” , you do not need God, you need “fun” and “pleasure”.

Sex in marriage is form of lust (pleasure tool) which is could be well managed and controlled with minimum harm.

Sound like you have problem with it?


Lust is addiction to pleasure, not pleasure itself, Alive.

It's true that even inside marriage one can become addicted to sex, even with his/her own spouse. It's possible that one puts pleasure above the person. Much of emphasys on pleasure in sex today lead to that. Like all corporal pleasures, there is a real danger of gettin addicted to it, even in the correct context.

But do you remember the warning about not allowing a man who made himself an eunuch to become a priest? It's in the Gospel. Chastity is *not* self-castration, be it physical or psychological. Self-castration, even of the psychological sort, is a sin in itself. We are to be delivered of the dependece on sexual pleasure, and not to become obsessed with avoiding it, which is but another passion, another compulsion.
psychological self-castration ....
Sound like some one try to justify own voluptuousness.

« Last Edit: November 08, 2010, 09:00:28 AM by Alive » Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,204



WWW
« Reply #75 on: November 08, 2010, 09:08:00 AM »

psychological self-castration ....
Sound like some one try to justify own voluptuousness.

All pleasure is bad. Sounds someone can't have a piece of pudding without devouring the whole buffet.

You should worry more about the pleasure you feel in correcting everybody than about what people feel when being intimate with their spouses.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #76 on: November 08, 2010, 09:21:31 AM »


Lust is addiction to pleasure, not pleasure itself, Alive.


 Lust is willing of pleasure and following enjoyment of it.
Addiction to pleasure and lust next level of illness.



But we talking about “sexual act” as sours of physiological endorphines splash.
And what way it effect religion, - connection with God.
Logged
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #77 on: November 08, 2010, 09:30:01 AM »

psychological self-castration ....
Sound like some one try to justify own voluptuousness.

All pleasure is bad. Sounds someone can't have a piece of pudding without devouring the whole buffet.

You should worry more about the pleasure you feel in correcting everybody than about what people feel when being intimate with their spouses.


I write to make sure if I am wrong some one would presented to me, for I not trust to my self.
For me is important to know what is right and what is wrong.

And thank you for remained me about look inside yourself more then correct other.

Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,204



WWW
« Reply #78 on: November 08, 2010, 09:45:44 AM »

Quote
A victim of sensuality who had overcome his weakness told me once that within people of this kind there flourishes a yearning for bodies, a shameless, and terrible spirit that asserts itself at the very heart’s core.  Sheer physical pain burns so fiercely in the heart that it is like being scorched by an open fire.  The sufferer finds that because of this he has no fear of God, he spurns the thought of punishment, turns away from prayer, and the sight of a corpse moves him no more that if it were a stone.  He is like someone out of his mind, in a daze and he is perpetually drunk with desire for man or beast.  And if a limit were not placed on the activities of this demon, no one would be saved, no one who is made of clay mingled with blood and foul moisture.

St. John Climacus and description of lust
 

http://orthodoxcounselor.com/healing_from_lust.htm

This, Alive, is what lust is. It's not merely feeling the natural pleasure that comes with the sexual act. St. John Climacus clearly describes it in a way that we, modernly, would addiction or compulsion.

I'll give an analogy. We all like to go outside on a sunny day and feel the warmth on our skin. It's a very pleasurable thing and healthy too. Some people, though, will go to great efforts to get a tan, out of pure vanity, and putting in risk their own skin's health. Some will go even deeper and will actually *worship* the sun.

The first feeling of pleasure is natural and in a sense, it's a gift of God. The latter two are not. Likewise with sexual pleasure. The pleasure a married couple feels while having sex is natural. In fact, to prevent from feeling it, one would have to become rather obsessed with sex, just like some people's obsession with food manifests not as eating to much, but as dieting too much. It *is* true that, like the obsessive tanner, a person may become addicted to sex even with his/her spouse. It's true too that, nowadays, excess of sex is much more common than the lack of it. As the movie "Fireproof" shows, not few wives have to "compete" with pornography for the hearts of their husbands.

But it's not a sin to enjoy a sunny day. God has made marriage the proper place for intercourse, with all that is involved in it. Including its pleasures. The Song of Songs even raise the natural pleasures of man-woman spousal relations to a fitting icon of the union of God and the Church.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2010, 09:47:24 AM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
EofK
Mrs. Y
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 3,976


lolcat addict


« Reply #79 on: November 08, 2010, 10:21:09 AM »

What is you native language? Your thoughts above aren't very clear. It seems like you are saying that sex without pleasure is the goal. I am very sorry for anyone one that believes that they can't enjoy marital sex. Sex is unitive AND procreative, it is not meant for procreation alone. Sex without pleasure is not unifying. And for a woman, sex without pleasure isn't very fun at all. To be quite honest sex without any pleasure for a woman can be downright painful. Men automatically have a "release" when they have sex, women do not. To think that sex without pleasure is the goal is extremely unfair to women. From my point of view a man that doesn't seek to give his wife pleasure in marital relations is in sin since only the desires of the husband are met, and not the wife's desires.

(Mods and Admin; I hope I am not being to explicit here, I just wanted to make sure I understood Alive's perspective)

Well put. Smiley 
Logged

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. -- Douglas Adams
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #80 on: November 08, 2010, 11:14:49 AM »

I do not differentiate monastic from no monastic life more then luck of sexual relation in first one.

So you are wrong. The most basic thing in monasticism is humility shown in an ultimate obedience to the Abbot. Fasting is just an addition.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #81 on: November 08, 2010, 03:33:41 PM »

sex without pleasure isn't very fun at all.
You so “American like” , you do not need God, you need “fun” and “pleasure”.

Sex in marriage is form of lust (pleasure tool) which is could be well managed and controlled with minimum harm.

Sound like you have problem with it?


Biologically for a woman sex without pleasure is PAINFUL unless you use a great deal of artificial lubrication PERIOD. If God didn't want sex to be enjoyable for anyone He wouldn't have made a woman in such a way that she must be aroused to make sex healthy and comfortable. If you are a man and don't try to arouse a woman at all before initiating sex you are being selfish, and that is a sin. It has nothing to do with being "American like" it is basic knowledge of sexual functions.  

Friction without lubrication=pain
« Last Edit: November 08, 2010, 03:41:06 PM by Quinault » Logged
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #82 on: November 08, 2010, 08:01:12 PM »

Quote
A victim of sensuality who had overcome his weakness told me once that within people of this kind there flourishes a yearning for bodies, a shameless, and terrible spirit that asserts itself at the very heart’s core.  Sheer physical pain burns so fiercely in the heart that it is like being scorched by an open fire.  The sufferer finds that because of this he has no fear of God, he spurns the thought of punishment, turns away from prayer, and the sight of a corpse moves him no more that if it were a stone.  He is like someone out of his mind, in a daze and he is perpetually drunk with desire for man or beast.  And if a limit were not placed on the activities of this demon, no one would be saved, no one who is made of clay mingled with blood and foul moisture.

St. John Climacus and description of lust
 

http://orthodoxcounselor.com/healing_from_lust.htm

This, Alive, is what lust is. It's not merely feeling the natural pleasure that comes with the sexual act. St. John Climacus clearly describes it in a way that we, modernly, would addiction or compulsion.

I'll give an analogy. We all like to go outside on a sunny day and feel the warmth on our skin. It's a very pleasurable thing and healthy too. Some people, though, will go to great efforts to get a tan, out of pure vanity, and putting in risk their own skin's health. Some will go even deeper and will actually *worship* the sun.

The first feeling of pleasure is natural and in a sense, it's a gift of God. The latter two are not. Likewise with sexual pleasure. The pleasure a married couple feels while having sex is natural. In fact, to prevent from feeling it, one would have to become rather obsessed with sex, just like some people's obsession with food manifests not as eating to much, but as dieting too much. It *is* true that, like the obsessive tanner, a person may become addicted to sex even with his/her spouse. It's true too that, nowadays, excess of sex is much more common than the lack of it. As the movie "Fireproof" shows, not few wives have to "compete" with pornography for the hearts of their husbands.

But it's not a sin to enjoy a sunny day. God has made marriage the proper place for intercourse, with all that is involved in it. Including its pleasures. The Song of Songs even raise the natural pleasures of man-woman spousal relations to a fitting icon of the union of God and the Church.


bla, bla, bla, bla, bla......….. so, yet you never define lust still, romans......







.....….and song of song is not about male and female any way.
Logged
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #83 on: November 08, 2010, 08:07:28 PM »

I do not differentiate monastic from no monastic life more then luck of sexual relation in first one.

So you are wrong. The most basic thing in monasticism is humility shown in an ultimate obedience to the Abbot. Fasting is just an addition.

If darkness in you, you call light, can imaging what is your darkness then….


And your point is for married couple do not need humility and  obedience….. are you Christian at all? Do you ever reed gospel and holy fathers to get familia with orthodoxy?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,726


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #84 on: November 08, 2010, 08:19:09 PM »

I do not differentiate monastic from no monastic life more then luck of sexual relation in first one.

So you are wrong. The most basic thing in monasticism is humility shown in an ultimate obedience to the Abbot. Fasting is just an addition.

If darkness in you, you call light, can imaging what is your darkness then….


And your point is for married couple do not need humility and  obedience….. are you Christian at all? Do you ever reed gospel and holy fathers to get familia with orthodoxy?
Do you have any patristic teaching with which you can refute Michał Kalina? (Heck, I wonder if you're even reading him correctly.)
« Last Edit: November 08, 2010, 08:20:26 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #85 on: November 08, 2010, 08:22:01 PM »

sex without pleasure isn't very fun at all.
You so “American like” , you do not need God, you need “fun” and “pleasure”.

Sex in marriage is form of lust (pleasure tool) which is could be well managed and controlled with minimum harm.

Sound like you have problem with it?


Biologically for a woman sex without pleasure is PAINFUL unless you use a great deal of artificial lubrication PERIOD. If God didn't want sex to be enjoyable for anyone He wouldn't have made a woman in such a way that she must be aroused to make sex healthy and comfortable. If you are a man and don't try to arouse a woman at all before initiating sex you are being selfish, and that is a sin. It has nothing to do with being "American like" it is basic knowledge of sexual functions.  

Friction without lubrication=pain

Can you be clear what your message about?



1. I did refer to word “fun” as meaningless and deceptive.
It is commonly used to justify own lust.

2. no sex hygienic issue was raise yet for you to preach about.

We discuss sex as form of lust here.
And married sex as lust which can be well controlled and not deadly if it managed in smart way.
Logged
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #86 on: November 08, 2010, 08:25:40 PM »

I do not differentiate monastic from no monastic life more then luck of sexual relation in first one.

So you are wrong. The most basic thing in monasticism is humility shown in an ultimate obedience to the Abbot. Fasting is just an addition.

If darkness in you, you call light, can imaging what is your darkness then….


And your point is for married couple do not need humility and  obedience….. are you Christian at all? Do you ever reed gospel and holy fathers to get familia with orthodoxy?
Do you have any patristic teaching with which you can refute Michał Kalina? (Heck, I wonder if you're even reading him correctly.)

refute what?


Can you make precise question what I need to present you?
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #87 on: November 08, 2010, 08:29:53 PM »

I think we have a language barrier here. In the context of what I wrote "not so fun" means unpleasant, or essentially the OPPOSITE of fun. The Orthodox church doesn't have a distinction between venial and mortal sins, so what point are you trying to make? Sin is sin, no matter how "small" or "large" we try to label it. To say that desire in the context of marriage is lust, and therefore a sin, means that it is sin and must be avoided.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2010, 08:30:56 PM by Quinault » Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #88 on: November 08, 2010, 08:32:59 PM »

Proverbs 5 is clearly speaking about enjoying your wife sexually. In fact the passage speaks about how enjoying your wife can prevent you from lusting after another woman.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2010, 08:34:45 PM by Quinault » Logged
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #89 on: November 08, 2010, 08:43:29 PM »

I think we have a language barrier here.

It is what people say to deceive other.

Of course we speak deferent language. Your one with “fun” is belong to justify lust and pleasure.
It is what we talking about.

Modern society develop deceiving terminology to justify lust etc, and walk you to antichrist.

You speak they language and perceive world way them perceive it, you all ready choose they religion.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,529


WWW
« Reply #90 on: November 08, 2010, 08:43:43 PM »

Proverbs 5 is clearly speaking about enjoying your wife sexually. In fact the passage speaks about how enjoying your wife can prevent you from lusting after another woman.

Not the entire chapter ... only verses 15-19.  The rest of the chapter warns about the perils of fornication.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #91 on: November 08, 2010, 08:45:23 PM »

Ok, that doesn't make any sense to me. You pm-ed me that you have a child. You still haven't mentioned whether or not you are married. Are you married? Because if you have a child and aren't married, it would explain a great deal.
Logged
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #92 on: November 08, 2010, 08:45:38 PM »

The Orthodox church doesn't have a distinction between venial and mortal sins
It is your personal invention.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #93 on: November 08, 2010, 08:47:51 PM »

Proverbs 5 is clearly speaking about enjoying your wife sexually. In fact the passage speaks about how enjoying your wife can prevent you from lusting after another woman.

Not the entire chapter ... only verses 15-19.  The rest of the chapter warns about the perils of fornication.

Fornication and adultery, not just fornication. It clearly speaks about "enjoying" your wife's breasts in particular. How a man can "enjoy" his wife's breasts without desiring them is beyond me. And don't tell me that a man should enjoy that his wife can breastfeed, that is too funny to even fathom.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #94 on: November 08, 2010, 08:48:42 PM »

The Orthodox church doesn't have a distinction between venial and mortal sins
It is your personal invention.

Show me that the Orthodox church distinguished between venial and mortal sins in terms of theosis. All sin is a stumbling block on the path to theosis.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,529


WWW
« Reply #95 on: November 08, 2010, 08:52:46 PM »

Proverbs 5 is clearly speaking about enjoying your wife sexually. In fact the passage speaks about how enjoying your wife can prevent you from lusting after another woman.

Not the entire chapter ... only verses 15-19.  The rest of the chapter warns about the perils of fornication.

Fornication and adultery, not just fornication. It clearly speaks about "enjoying" your wife's breasts in particular. How a man can "enjoy" his wife's breasts without desiring them is beyond me. And don't tell me that a man should enjoy that his wife can breastfeed, that is too funny to even fathom.

Whoa, I'm looking at the Orthodox Study Bible and I don't see any reference to breasts.  I can cite from the Septuagint in ancient Greek if you don't believe me....
Logged
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #96 on: November 08, 2010, 09:03:40 PM »

Proverbs 5 is clearly speaking about enjoying your wife sexually. In fact the passage speaks about how enjoying your wife can prevent you from lusting after another woman.
Precisely – prevent lust with another women….  So it basic prevention from deadly corruption.
Cor 7:9
Cor 7:5

There is deference between  perfect, allowed and prohibited.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #97 on: November 08, 2010, 09:10:59 PM »

Proverbs 5 is clearly speaking about enjoying your wife sexually. In fact the passage speaks about how enjoying your wife can prevent you from lusting after another woman.

Not the entire chapter ... only verses 15-19.  The rest of the chapter warns about the perils of fornication.

Fornication and adultery, not just fornication. It clearly speaks about "enjoying" your wife's breasts in particular. How a man can "enjoy" his wife's breasts without desiring them is beyond me. And don't tell me that a man should enjoy that his wife can breastfeed, that is too funny to even fathom.

Whoa, I'm looking at the Orthodox Study Bible and I don't see any reference to breasts.  I can cite from the Septuagint in ancient Greek if you don't believe me....

I didn't have an OSB on hand, verse 19 is translated as "breasts" in NIV, NASB, KJV and ESV, the only translations I had on hand when I posted.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2010, 09:11:26 PM by Quinault » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,726


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #98 on: November 08, 2010, 09:16:38 PM »

I do not differentiate monastic from no monastic life more then luck of sexual relation in first one.

So you are wrong. The most basic thing in monasticism is humility shown in an ultimate obedience to the Abbot. Fasting is just an addition.

If darkness in you, you call light, can imaging what is your darkness then….


And your point is for married couple do not need humility and  obedience….. are you Christian at all? Do you ever reed gospel and holy fathers to get familia with orthodoxy?
Do you have any patristic teaching with which you can refute Michał Kalina? (Heck, I wonder if you're even reading him correctly.)

refute what?


Can you make precise question what I need to present you?

What I would like to see from you is citations from patristic sources that support your claims and that refute the claims of those with whom you disagree. Right now you're resorting to allegations that those who disagree with you are not even Orthodox without explaining how they're wrong. No statements of "the Fathers say this"... No statements of "the Fathers never said that..." Just "You're not Orthodox..." If you cannot prove how your opponent is not Orthodox, then you're doing nothing but dismissing your opponents with ad hominems, the likes of which we don't tolerate on this forum.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #99 on: November 08, 2010, 09:35:06 PM »

Prov. 5:19 in the OSB is... "Let your loving deer and graceful colt keep company with you, And let her alone go before you and be with you at all times; For in living with her love, you will be great."

Perhaps the difference is in the translation from the Septuagint?
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #100 on: November 08, 2010, 09:41:10 PM »

Yes, I went and grabbed my OSB and looked up the passage. It would be interesting to see how the translators "got" that one. In any case, the argument for "enjoying" your wife can be made from scripture. I imagine that the exclusion of desire is not meant to be inferred from the passage.
Logged
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #101 on: November 08, 2010, 09:46:03 PM »

Proverbs 5 is clearly speaking about enjoying your wife sexually. In fact the passage speaks about how enjoying your wife can prevent you from lusting after another woman.

Not the entire chapter ... only verses 15-19.  The rest of the chapter warns about the perils of fornication.

Fornication and adultery, not just fornication. It clearly speaks about "enjoying" your wife's breasts in particular. How a man can "enjoy" his wife's breasts without desiring them is beyond me. And don't tell me that a man should enjoy that his wife can breastfeed, that is too funny to even fathom.

Whoa, I'm looking at the Orthodox Study Bible and I don't see any reference to breasts.  I can cite from the Septuagint in ancient Greek if you don't believe me....

I didn't have an OSB on hand, verse 19 is translated as "breasts" in NIV, NASB, KJV and ESV, the only translations I had on hand when I posted.


Then you would have great justification in judgment day “  I have no correct translation”… so roman…
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #102 on: November 08, 2010, 09:51:10 PM »

Ok, that doesn't make any sense to me. You pm-ed me that you have a child. You still haven't mentioned whether or not you are married. Are you married? Because if you have a child and aren't married, it would explain a great deal.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #103 on: November 08, 2010, 10:03:48 PM »

Yes, I went and grabbed my OSB and looked up the passage. It would be interesting to see how the translators "got" that one. In any case, the argument for "enjoying" your wife can be made from scripture. I imagine that the exclusion of desire is not meant to be inferred from the passage.

Fwiw, I looked up the translation of the Septuagint by Sir Lancelot Brenton, and Prov. 5:19 reads like this: "Let thy loving hart and thy graceful colt company with thee, and let her be considered thine own and be with thee at all times; for ravished with her love thou shalt be greatly increased." I agree with what you're saying, though.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #104 on: November 08, 2010, 10:08:53 PM »

Alive; you still need to prove that the Orthodox church makes a distinction between venial and mortal sins. Rather than insulting how Orthodox I am, why don't you back up your ascertains with proof.

As a side note; I am about as "American" as one can be in the North American Continent sense. In terms of culture, you are a bit off.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2010, 10:10:48 PM by Quinault » Logged
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #105 on: November 08, 2010, 10:15:01 PM »

Alive; you still need to prove that the Orthodox church makes a distinction between venial and mortal sins. Rather than insulting how Orthodox I am, why don't you back up your ascertains with proof.
1John 5:16-19
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #106 on: November 08, 2010, 10:20:17 PM »

This hurts me to say, really it does, but I actually agree with Alive on this one. Not that I think the Orthodox Church has a venial/mortal sin thing, but certainly the Fathers (and even the Scripture) speak of different degrees of sin*. Of course, that can't be divorced from what sin actually is, missing the mark and separation from God.


*EDIT--edited to say that I can provide references for this if desired...
« Last Edit: November 08, 2010, 10:20:52 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #107 on: November 08, 2010, 10:21:48 PM »

To quote the OSB in reference to the "sin leading to death";

Verse 16 speaks of the "willful continual disbelief in the Grace of the Holy Spirit towards us" Matt 12:28, 31, 32; Heb 6:4-6; 10:26-31


« Last Edit: November 08, 2010, 10:27:21 PM by Quinault » Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #108 on: November 08, 2010, 10:25:46 PM »

Varying degrees of sins are not an issue to my mind. The issue is that all sin separates us from God. The earthly ramifications for sins are all different, some more severe than others. But the result for a sin either "big" or "small" in terms of our path of salvation is the same.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #109 on: November 08, 2010, 10:39:24 PM »

Varying degrees of sins are not an issue to my mind. The issue is that all sin separates us from God. The earthly ramifications for sins are all different, some more severe than others. But the result for a sin either "big" or "small" in terms of our path of salvation is the same.

Well, tell me what you think of this passage in St. Gregory the Theologian, perhaps I am understanding it incorrectly:

"It is better both to attain the good and to keep the purification. But if it be impossible to do both it is surely better to be a little stained with your public affairs than to fall altogether short of grace; just as I think it better to undergo a slight punishment from father or master than to be put out of doors; and to be a little beamed upon than to be left in total darkness. And it is the part of wise men to choose, as in good things the greater and more perfect, so in evils the lesser and lighter. Wherefore do not overmuch dread the purification. For our success is always judged by comparison with our place in life by our just and merciful Judge; and often one who is in public life and has had small success has had a greater reward than one who in the enjoyment of liberty has not completely succeeded; as I think it more marvellous for a man to advance a little in fetters, than for one to run who is not carrying any weight; or to be only a little spattered in walking through mud, than to be perfectly clean when the road is clean." - Oration 40, 19

When St. Gregory speaks of "lesser and lighter" (as distinguished from greater and heavier) sins, and being judged according to our place in life, does this not sound like we will be judged more harshly if we could have chosen a lighter sin but didn't, and instead chose a greater sin? Or another passage, this one from St. Jerome:

"Some members we can dispense with and yet live: without others life is an impossibility. Some offences are light, some heavy. It is one thing to owe ten thousand talents, another to owe a farthing. We shall have to give account of the idle word no less than of adultery; but it is not the same thing to be put to the blush, and to be put upon the rack, to grow red in the face and to ensure lasting torment. Do you think I am merely expressing my own views? Hear what the Apostle John says: 'He who knows that his brother sinneth a sin not unto death, let him ask, and he shall give him life, even to him that sinneth not unto death. But he that hath sinned unto death, who shall pray for him?' You observe that if we entreat for smaller offences, we obtain pardon: if for greater ones, it is difficult to obtain our request: and that there is a great difference between sins." - Against Jovinianus, 2, 30
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,529


WWW
« Reply #110 on: November 08, 2010, 10:50:54 PM »

Proverbs 5 is clearly speaking about enjoying your wife sexually. In fact the passage speaks about how enjoying your wife can prevent you from lusting after another woman.

Not the entire chapter ... only verses 15-19.  The rest of the chapter warns about the perils of fornication.

Fornication and adultery, not just fornication. It clearly speaks about "enjoying" your wife's breasts in particular. How a man can "enjoy" his wife's breasts without desiring them is beyond me. And don't tell me that a man should enjoy that his wife can breastfeed, that is too funny to even fathom.

Whoa, I'm looking at the Orthodox Study Bible and I don't see any reference to breasts.  I can cite from the Septuagint in ancient Greek if you don't believe me....

I didn't have an OSB on hand, verse 19 is translated as "breasts" in NIV, NASB, KJV and ESV, the only translations I had on hand when I posted.

From the Septuagint, Proverbs 5:19 and we're looking for the pattern, μαστοὶ, which translates to breast (root for the word, mastectomy):

19. ἔλαφος φιλίας καὶ πῶλος σῶν χαρίτων ὁμιλείτω σοι ἡ δὲ ἰδία ἡγείσθω σου καὶ συνέστω σοι ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ ἐν γὰρ τῇ ταύτης φιλίᾳ συμπεριφερόμενος πολλοστὸς ἔσῃ

Pattern not found.
Logged
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #111 on: November 08, 2010, 11:02:27 PM »

This hurts me to say, really it does, but I actually agree with Alive on this one. Not that I think the Orthodox Church has a venial/mortal sin thing, but certainly the Fathers (and even the Scripture) speak of different degrees of sin*. Of course, that can't be divorced from what sin actually is, missing the mark and separation from God.


*EDIT--edited to say that I can provide references for this if desired...

So now we need to define what is mortal and what is not .

For most people think about in roman way – what is way of antichrist.




....and about separating from God – there is lot of speculation to. It is roman kind perception.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #112 on: November 08, 2010, 11:12:08 PM »

Nevermind, lol  Cool
« Last Edit: November 08, 2010, 11:12:55 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #113 on: November 08, 2010, 11:16:41 PM »

Varying degrees of sins are not an issue to my mind. The issue is that all sin separates us from God. The earthly ramifications for sins are all different, some more severe than others. But the result for a sin either "big" or "small" in terms of our path of salvation is the same.

Well, tell me what you think of this passage in St. Gregory the Theologian, perhaps I am understanding it incorrectly:

"It is better both to attain the good and to keep the purification. But if it be impossible to do both it is surely better to be a little stained with your public affairs than to fall altogether short of grace; just as I think it better to undergo a slight punishment from father or master than to be put out of doors; and to be a little beamed upon than to be left in total darkness. And it is the part of wise men to choose, as in good things the greater and more perfect, so in evils the lesser and lighter. Wherefore do not overmuch dread the purification. For our success is always judged by comparison with our place in life by our just and merciful Judge; and often one who is in public life and has had small success has had a greater reward than one who in the enjoyment of liberty has not completely succeeded; as I think it more marvellous for a man to advance a little in fetters, than for one to run who is not carrying any weight; or to be only a little spattered in walking through mud, than to be perfectly clean when the road is clean." - Oration 40, 19


I am no theologian. I can't claim to be one. It seems to me that most of what is being spoken about is earthly issues. Like the lesser of two evils paradox. The ramifications for speeding in your car on icy roads could be death. The ramifications of jaywalking could be death as well. Speeding on a crowded icy road endangers not only your life, but the lives of all the other people on the road. Jaywalking, though still just as illegal would only really bodily harm yourself as an individual, most likely you will just end up with a ticket. But sin is seen as corporate in the Orthodox church, that is why we seek forgiveness on Forgiveness Sunday. Both sins are the same, but they are entirely different. Both effect everyone, but only one physically endangers an individual. Jaywalking will harm your pocketbook, speeding could kill numerous people.

To be honest, I have spoken about the issue of sin numerous times with our priest. The Orthodox understanding of sin is both very constrictive and very freeing. All sin is equal, so we must maintain humility. All sins have different earthly ramifications, so we must be vigilant.

If you start to think about the levels of sin it allows too much room for judgemet. I knew a couple men that had issues with pornography. One thought he was better than the other because he looked at "softcore" porn whereas the other man looked had "hardcore." That distinction can't exist. Whether you are looking at a catalogue or penthouse, if you are looking at it for sexual gratification you are in sin.


(Sorry for the lengthy time in replying. I was in the middle of a rowdy game of "Sorry" with my eldest...I won  Grin )
« Last Edit: November 08, 2010, 11:42:01 PM by Quinault » Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,095


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #114 on: November 08, 2010, 11:20:29 PM »

Proverbs 5 is clearly speaking about enjoying your wife sexually. In fact the passage speaks about how enjoying your wife can prevent you from lusting after another woman.

Not the entire chapter ... only verses 15-19.  The rest of the chapter warns about the perils of fornication.

Fornication and adultery, not just fornication. It clearly speaks about "enjoying" your wife's breasts in particular. How a man can "enjoy" his wife's breasts without desiring them is beyond me. And don't tell me that a man should enjoy that his wife can breastfeed, that is too funny to even fathom.

Whoa, I'm looking at the Orthodox Study Bible and I don't see any reference to breasts.  I can cite from the Septuagint in ancient Greek if you don't believe me....

I didn't have an OSB on hand, verse 19 is translated as "breasts" in NIV, NASB, KJV and ESV, the only translations I had on hand when I posted.

From the Septuagint, Proverbs 5:19 and we're looking for the pattern, μαστοὶ, which translates to breast (root for the word, mastectomy):

19. ἔλαφος φιλίας καὶ πῶλος σῶν χαρίτων ὁμιλείτω σοι ἡ δὲ ἰδία ἡγείσθω σου καὶ συνέστω σοι ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ ἐν γὰρ τῇ ταύτης φιλίᾳ συμπεριφερόμενος πολλοστὸς ἔσῃ

Pattern not found.

Agreed.  OSB (you know, the new one) translation of the above (since Asteriktos already provided the Brenton):
"Let your loving deer and graceful colt keep company with you.  And let her alone go before you and be with you at all times; For in living with her love, you will be great."  It's about monogamy, and about what that relationship does for you.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #115 on: November 09, 2010, 12:13:34 AM »



If you start to think about the levels of sin it allows too much room for judgemet.


Our nature corrupt and defected , and it not about to change till resurrection.

Deadly sin is to present corruption as goodness.
Deadly is present emotional state as God Grace and Holy spirit work.

If I eat food and my flesh like it is corrupting not grace. So should I not eat and die?

Same with sex and other flesh needs. Some we need to provide and remember it could get you in bigger trouble if you not control it. … or you may turn into maniac extremist with “pro biblical presentation” or gospel speculation lust promoter.



Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,529


WWW
« Reply #116 on: November 09, 2010, 12:19:10 AM »



If you start to think about the levels of sin it allows too much room for judgemet.


Our nature corrupt and defected , and it not about to change till resurrection.

Deadly sin is to present corruption as goodness.
Deadly is present emotional state as God Grace and Holy spirit work.

If I eat food and my flesh like it is corrupting not grace. So should I not eat and die?

Same with sex and other flesh needs. Some we need to provide and remember it could get you in bigger trouble if you not control it. … or you may turn into maniac extremist with “pro biblical presentation” or gospel speculation lust promoter.

Do you have a child to raise or have you given up your child for your vocation? Huh

If you choose to keep your child private (which is perfectly fine), why do you expect us to respond to you in likewise?  Maybe you had a child out of wedlock ... in Orthodox theology, repent, do what you can for your child and it's not the end of the world, you know that; you choose to teach differently....
Logged
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #117 on: November 09, 2010, 12:22:35 AM »

One thought he was better than the other because he looked at "softcore" porn whereas the other man looked had "hardcore." That distinction can't exist. Whether you are looking at a catalogue or penthouse, if you are looking at it for sexual gratification you are in sin.
erotic, Softcore, hardcore what other class is there more and more?Huh?
Do not worry. Enjoy art – lust, sun set, sun rise etc – is lust to.
…. So in big picture we screw ….

Only salvation is to realise it and keep asking God to fix it, ant limiting our pleasure as much each can handle.
Logged
authio
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 369



« Reply #118 on: November 09, 2010, 12:28:27 AM »

Only salvation is to realise it and keep asking God to fix it, ant limiting our pleasure as much each can handle.



Alive, you make me think this form is your lust.
Logged

Christ is risen!
Cristo ha resucitado!
Христос Воскресе!
Χριστός Ανέστη!
 المسيح قام
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #119 on: November 09, 2010, 01:09:29 AM »

You can lust for a sunset? The language barrier is much larger than I thought. I don't mean to sound insulting, really I don't intend to insult you, but you need to learn a bit more about the modern English language before you try to be the authority on what words mean. I have never heard of anyone lusting for a sunset. Maybe there is some sort of sexual fetish I am unaware of, even if there is, "lust" for a sunset would be far from the norm.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 01:14:32 AM by Quinault » Logged
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #120 on: November 09, 2010, 01:53:40 AM »

You can lust for a sunset? The language barrier is much larger than I thought. I don't mean to sound insulting, really I don't intend to insult you, but you need to learn a bit more about the modern English language before you try to be the authority on what words mean. I have never heard of anyone lusting for a sunset. Maybe there is some sort of sexual fetish I am unaware of, even if there is, "lust" for a sunset would be far from the norm.
Music, poetry and art often are products of lust.

Modern English is twisting human nature to insure every one enjoying beast condition.
It is you right to accepting and enjoy this deception, same as may right do not.
Logged
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #121 on: November 09, 2010, 01:54:16 AM »

Modern English is twisting human nature to insure every one enjoying beast condition.
It is you right to accepting and enjoy this deception, same as may right do not.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 01:55:12 AM by Alive » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,726


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #122 on: November 09, 2010, 01:58:34 AM »

You can lust for a sunset? The language barrier is much larger than I thought. I don't mean to sound insulting, really I don't intend to insult you, but you need to learn a bit more about the modern English language before you try to be the authority on what words mean. I have never heard of anyone lusting for a sunset. Maybe there is some sort of sexual fetish I am unaware of, even if there is, "lust" for a sunset would be far from the norm.
Music, poetry and art often are products of lust.

Modern English is twisting human nature to insure every one enjoying beast condition.
It is you right to accepting and enjoy this deception, same as may right do not.

What makes you the authority on lust?
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #123 on: November 09, 2010, 02:50:31 AM »

Show me patristic or biblical evidence that one can lust after a sunset specifically.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #124 on: November 09, 2010, 03:01:34 AM »

Some art, music, and poetry is the product of lust. That doesn't mean that all art, music, and poetry is the product of lust. In any case, how do you bring a sunset into that list? Other than pollution, we have nothing to do with the beauty of a sunset. A sunset is beautiful because it was made that way, just like flowers are beautiful. God created beauty, there is no sin in enjoying beauty. As an Orthodox Christian you venerate works of art; icons. Yes, they are windows to heaven and are used for prayer. But there is no sin in enjoying the beauty of the iconostasis is there? We have beautiful altars and exquisite vestments, if the enjoyment of beauty was evil, why would we adorn our churches with such beautiful things?

Christ lived in human flesh, being human doesn't mean that everything we do is corrupt automatically.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 03:09:30 AM by Quinault » Logged
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #125 on: November 09, 2010, 05:10:32 AM »

Some art, music, and poetry is the product of lust. That doesn't mean that all art, music, and poetry is the product of lust. In any case, how do you bring a sunset into that list? Other than pollution, we have nothing to do with the beauty of a sunset. A sunset is beautiful because it was made that way, just like flowers are beautiful. God created beauty, there is no sin in enjoying beauty. As an Orthodox Christian you venerate works of art; icons. Yes, they are windows to heaven and are used for prayer. But there is no sin in enjoying the beauty of the iconostasis is there? We have beautiful altars and exquisite vestments, if the enjoyment of beauty was evil, why would we adorn our churches with such beautiful things?

Christ lived in human flesh, being human doesn't mean that everything we do is corrupt automatically.

No thing it self is lust.
1. It could be product of just,
2. created for lust
3. or perceived in lust.

Sun is just sours of light and radiation , but some people enjoy so much so it be came idol.

same with icons, and with other art form it even worse.
Enjoy iconostas could be lust too.
By the way I heard as one shi-monk say it.

God create every thing in best manner for He can’t create any thing waning, for it serve to man , not to man enjoy it.  We mean to enjoy only God.
So your point is that God need create thing waning to prevent man have no chance to fall in lust?


Logged
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #126 on: November 09, 2010, 05:20:37 AM »

Some art, music, and poetry is the product of lust. That doesn't mean that all art, music, and poetry is the product of lust. In any case, how do you bring a sunset into that list? Other than pollution, we have nothing to do with the beauty of a sunset. A sunset is beautiful because it was made that way, just like flowers are beautiful. God created beauty, there is no sin in enjoying beauty.

God creat sun and female, so
-  enjoy watch “beauty of a sunset” for pleasure – not lust.
-  enjoy watch “beauty of a naked female” for pleasure – porno lust and sin.

Is it your point?
Logged
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #127 on: November 09, 2010, 06:37:42 AM »

Show me patristic or biblical evidence that one can lust after a sunset specifically.
Am I have dejavu?


Would Isaak Sirin good enough for you?

Man can’t see inside hidden beauty(Gods Kingdom), before he abolish any out side beauty and scorn it.
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,204



WWW
« Reply #128 on: November 09, 2010, 08:52:12 AM »


bla, bla, bla, bla, bla......….. so, yet you never define lust still, romans......
.....….and song of song is not about male and female any way.

St. John Climacus and Song of Songs is bla bla bla. That settles it them. I'll now spend five times more to get tasteless food and enjoy how spiritual and detached I am for not caring for food.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #129 on: November 09, 2010, 11:22:19 AM »


bla, bla, bla, bla, bla......….. so, yet you never define lust still, romans......
.....….and song of song is not about male and female any way.

St. John Climacus and Song of Songs is bla bla bla. That settles it them. I'll now spend five times more to get tasteless food and enjoy how spiritual and detached I am for not caring for food.


your St. John qout:

A victim of sensuality who had overcome his weakness told me once that within people of this kind there flourishes a yearning for bodies, a shameless, and terrible spirit that asserts itself at the very heart’s core.  Sheer physical pain burns so fiercely in the heart that it is like being scorched by an open fire.  The sufferer finds that because of this he has no fear of God, he spurns the thought of punishment, turns away from prayer, and the sight of a corpse moves him no more that if it were a stone.  He is like someone out of his mind, in a daze and he is perpetually drunk with desire for man or beast.  And if a limit were not placed on the activities of this demon, no one would be saved, no one who is made of clay mingled with blood and foul moisture.


My St. John qout:

Lust loving people posses high level attraction and love to flesh(body). Them also posses shameless and unhuman spirit living in they heart.  During opposition (to this spirit), those who attacked  by this spirit ,  feel  fire like burning lust. Hi no longer afraid of God nor everlasting suffering, ignoring prays. Almost like he commit such sin in real. He looks on corps as on dead rocks.
Any who suffer this became like mad and dumb and have non stop and high level degree animal/human desire.
If such opposition have not time limit – no one would have any chance to survive.




..... so it is why Ap. say : "better get wife, rather get yourself in such fire".

So you have fire extinguisher any time you need it….




so what is your point?
and what your problems are?
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,204



WWW
« Reply #130 on: November 09, 2010, 11:45:29 AM »


bla, bla, bla, bla, bla......….. so, yet you never define lust still, romans......
.....….and song of song is not about male and female any way.

St. John Climacus and Song of Songs is bla bla bla. That settles it them. I'll now spend five times more to get tasteless food and enjoy how spiritual and detached I am for not caring for food.


your St. John qout:

A victim of sensuality who had overcome his weakness told me once that within people of this kind there flourishes a yearning for bodies, a shameless, and terrible spirit that asserts itself at the very heart’s core.  Sheer physical pain burns so fiercely in the heart that it is like being scorched by an open fire.  The sufferer finds that because of this he has no fear of God, he spurns the thought of punishment, turns away from prayer, and the sight of a corpse moves him no more that if it were a stone.  He is like someone out of his mind, in a daze and he is perpetually drunk with desire for man or beast.  And if a limit were not placed on the activities of this demon, no one would be saved, no one who is made of clay mingled with blood and foul moisture.


My St. John qout:

Lust loving people posses high level attraction and love to flesh(body). Them also posses shameless and unhuman spirit living in they heart.  During opposition (to this spirit), those who attacked  by this spirit ,  feel  fire like burning lust. Hi no longer afraid of God nor everlasting suffering, ignoring prays. Almost like he commit such sin in real. He looks on corps as on dead rocks.
Any who suffer this became like mad and dumb and have non stop and high level degree animal/human desire.
If such opposition have not time limit – no one would have any chance to survive.




..... so it is why Ap. say : "better get wife, rather get yourself in such fire".

So you have fire extinguisher any time you need it….




so what is your point?
and what your problems are?

Alive, the first quote says and the second only emphasys:

1) The sin of lust is a craving like an addiction;

What we are pointing out is:

2) Enjoyment is not craving.

Now, it is very important before we continue.

Do you see the difference between a craving or a compulsiong for something and the enjoyment of this thing?
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Alive
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 514


« Reply #131 on: November 09, 2010, 11:53:23 AM »


bla, bla, bla, bla, bla......….. so, yet you never define lust still, romans......
.....….and song of song is not about male and female any way.

St. John Climacus and Song of Songs is bla bla bla. That settles it them. I'll now spend five times more to get tasteless food and enjoy how spiritual and detached I am for not caring for food.


your St. John qout:

A victim of sensuality who had overcome his weakness told me once that within people of this kind there flourishes a yearning for bodies, a shameless, and terrible spirit that asserts itself at the very heart’s core.  Sheer physical pain burns so fiercely in the heart that it is like being scorched by an open fire.  The sufferer finds that because of this he has no fear of God, he spurns the thought of punishment, turns away from prayer, and the sight of a corpse moves him no more that if it were a stone.  He is like someone out of his mind, in a daze and he is perpetually drunk with desire for man or beast.  And if a limit were not placed on the activities of this demon, no one would be saved, no one who is made of clay mingled with blood and foul moisture.


My St. John qout:

Lust loving people posses high level attraction and love to flesh(body). Them also posses shameless and unhuman spirit living in they heart.  During opposition (to this spirit), those who attacked  by this spirit ,  feel  fire like burning lust. Hi no longer afraid of God nor everlasting suffering, ignoring prays. Almost like he commit such sin in real. He looks on corps as on dead rocks.
Any who suffer this became like mad and dumb and have non stop and high level degree animal/human desire.
If such opposition have not time limit – no one would have any chance to survive.




..... so it is why Ap. say : "better get wife, rather get yourself in such fire".

So you have fire extinguisher any time you need it….




so what is your point?
and what your problems are?

Alive, the first quote says and the second only emphasys:

1) The sin of lust is a craving like an addiction;

What we are pointing out is:

2) Enjoyment is not craving.

Now, it is very important before we continue.

Do you see the difference between a craving or a compulsiong for something and the enjoyment of this thing?

Different degree lust corruption.
Logged
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #132 on: November 09, 2010, 04:52:27 PM »

I had an interesting debate with my mother about what sex is.  I know I'm just 15, but I know enough from TV, school, and my four pregnant friends.  you see, my mother and I have DRASTICALLY different views of sex.  I believe that sex is how two devoted people consumate their marriage, sortof "sealing the deal".  this means that their together, they've become one.  I also believe that the reason sex feels good, and we want to do it, is so that we want to reproduce.  it's basic science. 

my mother feels that casual sex should be like "going to dinner".  it doesn't matter if people just do it to do it.  she also says people want to have sex to have sex, and it stops there (whereas I believe people want to to have children).  my mother also believes that you shouldn't have to marry to have sex a/o live together. and that people shouldn't be stuck with just one lover for the rest of their lives.  I ask her if she condones polygamy, and she does not.  she believes that people can just casually have sex with anyone they care about, and not have to own up to any commitment.

who is correct?!  am I to conservative when it comes to this?  is my mother too liberal? 

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

No, your are not being too conservative, but relent from nearing finger pointing at your mother (as others on this thread have wrongfully done) as she is being realistic, and quite miraculously honest to discuss this so practically with you.  Her advice is based on reality, and the Church deals with reality above all else.  I was raised in a staunchly conservative environment, and I have always been surprised to see how diverse sexuality is even amongst other conservative cultures/communities/traditions.  Sexuality is so mysterious and pervasive that it defies easy definitions.  Further, it is a taboo in many cultures and so open and honest dialogue is hard to find, but it crucial and necessary!



The trouble for you is that you are young, and inexperienced, and while I am by no means suggesting you should suddenly pursue experience, I would say you should reserve any absolute judgment or opinions on the matter, and take your mother's sincere words to heart. It doesn't sound like she is promoting hedonism or promiscuity as much as just being honest with you and also letting you know she is not prepared to judge or condemn you in the future of your life.  That is a dear mother, and you are blessed to have her.


Science does not explain sex by the way, it only deals with the mechanics, not the psychology or the spirituality or especially the theological interpretations you have sparked and witnessed on this thread.  Some of the ideas you have suggested, you might see in the future of your own and others experiences does not quite adequately deal with the matter.  There is no easy or simple way to explain or understand sexuality, and you will witness in this world a wide range of diversity in this matter.  A limited perspective will only become confused at the prospects of differences, but God operates in a real world, flaws and all, and we as Christians have to continually reevaluate the Will of God as it operates within out lives and the world, and make sense to each experience as it comes.

My own testimony is that in the context of love, sexuality is an expression of altruism, and that it is the way to convert the physical sensations of sexuality from the potential for mere lust into the joy of selfless giving in pleasuring another person and also receiving such pleasure.  This may be what the Apostle Paul was suggesting or what Saint John Chrystostum was hinting at.  While many folks are able to express their bodies sexuality in self controlled ways, to easily maintain virginity, or celibacy, or abstinence or various things, this is a Gift from God as Christ explained regarding Eunuchs.  For others, marriage and other appropriate sexual activities are condoned and approved expressions of the language of sexuality which in the human experience is complex, compelling and mysterious. But we see from experience that sexual expression defies such concepts and boxes, and is quite honestly a baffling phenomenon.  Further remember not all marriage is love, and not all love is married, so even by my own definitions there arise divergences.

I have no advice for you other then to follow your heart, be careful never to condemn anyone, especially your own mother (not to suggest you were by the way) and I applaud your honesty and ability to ask the right questions, continue in it and God will reveal His Will and understanding to you.  As a high school teacher, I see kids your age dealing with a lot of important life changes, including expressions of sexuality, and my only hope and ambition, is that in all things, is that kids (and adults) learn to express all their experiences in a healthy way, for the emotional, physical and spiritual body.  In Orthodox, we teach a different Gospel of health then the textbooks, but the focus is the same, health.


stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,540



« Reply #133 on: November 09, 2010, 09:51:16 PM »

I had an interesting debate with my mother about what sex is.  I know I'm just 15, but I know enough from TV, school, and my four pregnant friends.  you see, my mother and I have DRASTICALLY different views of sex.  I believe that sex is how two devoted people consumate their marriage, sortof "sealing the deal".  this means that their together, they've become one.  I also believe that the reason sex feels good, and we want to do it, is so that we want to reproduce.  it's basic science. 

my mother feels that casual sex should be like "going to dinner".  it doesn't matter if people just do it to do it.  she also says people want to have sex to have sex, and it stops there (whereas I believe people want to to have children).  my mother also believes that you shouldn't have to marry to have sex a/o live together. and that people shouldn't be stuck with just one lover for the rest of their lives.  I ask her if she condones polygamy, and she does not.  she believes that people can just casually have sex with anyone they care about, and not have to own up to any commitment.

who is correct?!  am I to conservative when it comes to this?  is my mother too liberal? 

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

No, your are not being too conservative, but relent from nearing finger pointing at your mother (as others on this thread have wrongfully done) as she is being realistic, and quite miraculously honest to discuss this so practically with you.  Her advice is based on reality, and the Church deals with reality above all else.  I was raised in a staunchly conservative environment, and I have always been surprised to see how diverse sexuality is even amongst other conservative cultures/communities/traditions.  Sexuality is so mysterious and pervasive that it defies easy definitions.  Further, it is a taboo in many cultures and so open and honest dialogue is hard to find, but it crucial and necessary!



The trouble for you is that you are young, and inexperienced, and while I am by no means suggesting you should suddenly pursue experience, I would say you should reserve any absolute judgment or opinions on the matter, and take your mother's sincere words to heart. It doesn't sound like she is promoting hedonism or promiscuity as much as just being honest with you and also letting you know she is not prepared to judge or condemn you in the future of your life.  That is a dear mother, and you are blessed to have her.


Science does not explain sex by the way, it only deals with the mechanics, not the psychology or the spirituality or especially the theological interpretations you have sparked and witnessed on this thread.  Some of the ideas you have suggested, you might see in the future of your own and others experiences does not quite adequately deal with the matter.  There is no easy or simple way to explain or understand sexuality, and you will witness in this world a wide range of diversity in this matter.  A limited perspective will only become confused at the prospects of differences, but God operates in a real world, flaws and all, and we as Christians have to continually reevaluate the Will of God as it operates within out lives and the world, and make sense to each experience as it comes.

My own testimony is that in the context of love, sexuality is an expression of altruism, and that it is the way to convert the physical sensations of sexuality from the potential for mere lust into the joy of selfless giving in pleasuring another person and also receiving such pleasure.  This may be what the Apostle Paul was suggesting or what Saint John Chrystostum was hinting at.  While many folks are able to express their bodies sexuality in self controlled ways, to easily maintain virginity, or celibacy, or abstinence or various things, this is a Gift from God as Christ explained regarding Eunuchs.  For others, marriage and other appropriate sexual activities are condoned and approved expressions of the language of sexuality which in the human experience is complex, compelling and mysterious. But we see from experience that sexual expression defies such concepts and boxes, and is quite honestly a baffling phenomenon.  Further remember not all marriage is love, and not all love is married, so even by my own definitions there arise divergences.

I have no advice for you other then to follow your heart, be careful never to condemn anyone, especially your own mother (not to suggest you were by the way) and I applaud your honesty and ability to ask the right questions, continue in it and God will reveal His Will and understanding to you.  As a high school teacher, I see kids your age dealing with a lot of important life changes, including expressions of sexuality, and my only hope and ambition, is that in all things, is that kids (and adults) learn to express all their experiences in a healthy way, for the emotional, physical and spiritual body.  In Orthodox, we teach a different Gospel of health then the textbooks, but the focus is the same, health.


stay blessed,
habte selassie

This thread before this post was beginning to border on shear madness.

Great reply Habte. Every post I've read by you is incredibly thoughtful and generous.

Thank you for your considerate words.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #134 on: December 28, 2012, 01:33:03 AM »

Quinault,

I sort of dropped out of the thread after my last post, but upon going back over the thread I did want to thank you for your response to me above. Smiley
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,774


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #135 on: December 28, 2012, 06:43:21 PM »

I'm just going to ask, do sexual practices like oral or handjobs etc. or anything that causes an ejaculation count as sex in Orthodoxy? In other words, can two people do all those things and technically not be considered fornicators in the Church?
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
biro
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,188


« Reply #136 on: December 28, 2012, 06:59:56 PM »

I'm just going to ask, do sexual practices like oral or handjobs etc. or anything that causes an ejaculation count as sex in Orthodoxy? In other words, can two people do all those things and technically not be considered fornicators in the Church?

Are you kidding?
Logged

Not posting
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,774


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #137 on: December 28, 2012, 07:03:26 PM »

I'm just going to ask, do sexual practices like oral or handjobs etc. or anything that causes an ejaculation count as sex in Orthodoxy? In other words, can two people do all those things and technically not be considered fornicators in the Church?

Are you kidding?

No, I'm asking a serious question. According to the Church, how far is "too far"? How "far" can you go until it's considered fornication?
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #138 on: December 28, 2012, 07:05:49 PM »

I'm just going to ask, do sexual practices like oral or handjobs etc. or anything that causes an ejaculation count as sex in Orthodoxy? In other words, can two people do all those things and technically not be considered fornicators in the Church?

Are you kidding?

No, I'm asking a serious question. According to the Church, how far is "too far"? How "far" can you go until it's considered fornication?

You want the position of the early Church, medieval Church, or modern Church?  Wink
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,774


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #139 on: December 28, 2012, 07:07:11 PM »

How about all three?
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #140 on: December 28, 2012, 07:10:30 PM »

Things got more permissive as time went on, but handjobs and oral sex are still out. You could probably french kiss a bit (I said a bit!) without getting into too much trouble though.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,774


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #141 on: December 28, 2012, 07:19:58 PM »

So basically anything that could cause an orgasm is out?
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
biro
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,188


« Reply #142 on: December 28, 2012, 07:22:12 PM »

So basically anything that could cause an orgasm is out?

No, go and do whatever you want because you want it.

That's what you want to hear.

Logged

Not posting
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,774


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #143 on: December 28, 2012, 07:39:01 PM »

Psychologically, we feel attached to the person we have sex with. "Liberal" people think this is childish and something to be outgrown from in order to do it just like friends have drinks. It is not. It is what sex is meant to be: something that makes us feel closer to our partner. To "outgrow" this feeling, is the same as to "outgrow" the sensation of pain when we touch fire or the sensation of pleasure when feeling the wind blow on a sunny summer morning.

No offense, but this feeling of attachment you are mentioning seems to actually have been responsible for some of the worst atrocities in history, and is actually very animalistic in nature. It's about selfishness and the evolutionary desire to pass on your genes "I want to be the one to pass on my genes", "I want to be the one with the mates", "I want to own you", "You are MINE and I want you to only have sex with me". There is really nothing "spiritual" or "sacred" about this. It's the precise reason why women throughout history have been viewed more as a sexual commodity than as people, and why people kill each other over a partner, because no one wants to share. THEY want to be the only one with the partner to pass their genes onto. There is also the possibility that this--along with monogamy in general--originated from when prehistoric women--just like chimpanzees--would have promiscuous sex with everyone, and thus, whatever male she settled down with was forced to take care of her children--even if they were not his. Monogamy and this feeling of attachment--along with the social taboo against being promiscuous--solved this problem for males by forcing females to have sex with only one male and staying committed to him, that way the male would only have to provide for his children opposed to the children from another male.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2012, 07:42:53 PM by JamesR » Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Dominika
Serbian/Polish
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Poland
Posts: 1,029


St. Luke, pray for us!


WWW
« Reply #144 on: December 28, 2012, 08:11:49 PM »

I strongly disagree with you, James. This feeling of attachments is because having sex demands being totally open and naked (also figuratively - psychologically) for the other person and what's more, this feeling also takes place with other gestures - if your personality is developed properly, you feel a kind of connection even after e.g a kiss or close hug and you keep it in mind. The person with whom you've been close, can't be totally indifferent to you. For sure, biology has its role in it, but not primary. That's why such things like oral shouldn't happen outside the marriage.

I know I probably haven't put clear what I mean.
Logged

Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #145 on: December 28, 2012, 08:14:46 PM »

I'm just going to ask, do sexual practices like oral or handjobs etc. or anything that causes an ejaculation count as sex in Orthodoxy? In other words, can two people do all those things and technically not be considered fornicators in the Church?

Without defining "fornication", I would say that anything involving or requiring the removal of clothing would be inappropriate.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,774


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #146 on: December 28, 2012, 08:17:03 PM »

So pretty much anything that involves our "private areas"?
« Last Edit: December 28, 2012, 08:17:44 PM by JamesR » Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
WPM
Revolutionary Writer
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,578



« Reply #147 on: December 28, 2012, 08:34:49 PM »

I'm just going to ask, do sexual practices like oral or handjobs etc. or anything that causes an ejaculation count as sex in Orthodoxy? In other words, can two people do all those things and technically not be considered fornicators in the Church?

Sex is the intercourse between male and female.

It happens when the man gets an erection and the woman inserts the penis into the vagina.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2012, 08:36:08 PM by WPM » Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,774


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #148 on: December 28, 2012, 08:38:14 PM »

I'm just going to ask, do sexual practices like oral or handjobs etc. or anything that causes an ejaculation count as sex in Orthodoxy? In other words, can two people do all those things and technically not be considered fornicators in the Church?

Sex is the intercourse between male and female.

It happens when the man gets an erection and the woman inserts the penis into the vagina.

So basically anal, oral and every other sexual practice doesn't count then? The Church has to have a more concise definition than that.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
WPM
Revolutionary Writer
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,578



« Reply #149 on: December 28, 2012, 08:42:54 PM »

I'm just going to ask, do sexual practices like oral or handjobs etc. or anything that causes an ejaculation count as sex in Orthodoxy? In other words, can two people do all those things and technically not be considered fornicators in the Church?

Sex is the intercourse between male and female.

It happens when the man gets an erection and the woman inserts the penis into the vagina.

So basically anal, oral and every other sexual practice doesn't count then? The Church has to have a more concise definition than that.

Other stuff that tickles your sexual fancy is meant to be within the confines of privacy.
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #150 on: December 28, 2012, 09:23:03 PM »

The Church has to have a more concise definition than that.

Why do you need such a concise definition? Just avoid anything of that general nature outside of marriage, and if you stumble go to confession.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #151 on: December 28, 2012, 09:33:56 PM »

Anyone who isn't a small child and asks what is sex mostly likely is looking for loopholes or reading from Bill Clintons dictionary.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #152 on: December 28, 2012, 09:45:16 PM »

reading from Bill Clintons dictionary.

Well "IS" is capitalized in the title...  Cool
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #153 on: December 28, 2012, 09:48:42 PM »

reading from Bill Clintons dictionary.

Well "IS" is capitalized in the title...  Cool
I know! Wink
Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #154 on: December 28, 2012, 10:33:54 PM »

Anyone who isn't a small child and asks what is sex mostly likely is looking for loopholes or reading from Bill Clintons dictionary.

Not necessarily.  I know a certain board member, who may have already chimed in (I didn't bother to read the whole thread), and if not hopefully will, has some interesting views on the matter, from what I recall.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,774


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #155 on: December 29, 2012, 02:07:52 AM »

I'm just asking an honest question and all of you--at least Biro and Kerdy to an extent--are going off on me like I asked a bad question or something. I'm just asking an honest question. In this modern day and age, how are we to know what is "too far" according to the Church? Sure, we obviously know that literal sexual intercourse is condemned except for married persons, but there are so many other sexual practices nowadays that it is hard to know where to draw the line from saving your virginity to being a downright prude.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,529


WWW
« Reply #156 on: December 29, 2012, 02:14:59 AM »

I'm just asking an honest question and all of you--at least Biro and Kerdy to an extent--are going off on me like I asked a bad question or something. I'm just asking an honest question. In this modern day and age, how are we to know what is "too far" according to the Church? Sure, we obviously know that literal sexual intercourse is condemned except for married persons, but there are so many other sexual practices nowadays that it is hard to know where to draw the line from saving your virginity to being a downright prude.

There have been thousands of posts dedicated to the subject of fornication.  Why do you persist?  We can't bless your activity; in fact, we don't care what you do in your bedroom or bathroom as long as you are prepared to account for your actions on Judgment Day.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2012, 02:30:12 AM by SolEX01 » Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #157 on: December 29, 2012, 02:24:55 AM »

Look, I hate when people say "ask your priest," because maybe your priest is a jerk or an idiot. But this really is a situation where we can't answer these questions when you get down to the nitty gritty of slapping a butt or french kissing or necking. I can't tell you whether that's ok or not. In the past probably not. Today, maybe it is, I don't know. If you really want an ecclesiastical answer, then ask your priest, or even ask your bishop(s). Here's the thing though--if you ask, be prepared to follow their guidance. If not, then set some type of rule that seems sensible, like no activity involving things generally covered in underwear. That's my 2 cents anyway.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #158 on: December 29, 2012, 02:25:55 AM »

I didn't bother to read the whole thread

You missed my argument with alive? Aww man...  Cool
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #159 on: December 29, 2012, 04:19:35 AM »

I'm just asking an honest question and all of you--at least Biro and Kerdy to an extent--are going off on me like I asked a bad question or something. I'm just asking an honest question. In this modern day and age, how are we to know what is "too far" according to the Church? Sure, we obviously know that literal sexual intercourse is condemned except for married persons, but there are so many other sexual practices nowadays that it is hard to know where to draw the line from saving your virginity to being a downright prude.
A good rule of thumb when it comes to this sort of thing is, if you have to ask if its wrong, it probably is wrong.

I'm not trying to be ugly toward you James.  I hope you know this, but I'm wondering how many times it will take for us to tell you to talk to your priest about these things before you actually do instead of asking total strangers on the Internet.  A spiritual father has a purpose.  At least give him the opportunity to fulfill that purpose.
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,889



« Reply #160 on: December 29, 2012, 04:35:07 AM »

People, please. Get a room.
Logged

Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #161 on: December 29, 2012, 09:51:09 PM »

going off on me

I apologize if I came across this way.

Quote
what is "too far" according to the Church?

I was just trying to offer some guidance to this in 145. My point in 150 was that instead of creating precise definitions and loopholes to justify acting out on our desires, we should acknowledge a sinful act as sinful and seek God when we fall to it.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
WPM
Revolutionary Writer
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,578



« Reply #162 on: December 29, 2012, 09:54:23 PM »

A spiritual father has a purpose.  At least give him the opportunity to fulfill that purpose.

That happened about the 5th or 6th time I spoke with a priest. After that happens you stop going back
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #163 on: December 29, 2012, 10:01:32 PM »

A spiritual father has a purpose.  At least give him the opportunity to fulfill that purpose.

That happened about the 5th or 6th time I spoke with a priest. After that happens you stop going back

After what happens?
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #164 on: December 29, 2012, 10:04:19 PM »

I think WPM is taking "fulfill" as meaning "complete" or "accomplish"... so WPM is saying that the priest had his role, completed it, and now they have moved on...
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
biro
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,188


« Reply #165 on: December 29, 2012, 10:05:11 PM »

I'm just asking an honest question and all of you--at least Biro and Kerdy to an extent--are going off on me like I asked a bad question or something. I'm just asking an honest question. In this modern day and age, how are we to know what is "too far" according to the Church? Sure, we obviously know that literal sexual intercourse is condemned except for married persons, but there are so many other sexual practices nowadays that it is hard to know where to draw the line from saving your virginity to being a downright prude.

No, it's not.

You're trying to find out how much you can get away with.

You already know what the church teaches, and what supporters of that are probably going to say. But you want it to be special for you, because no one else has ever been 16 and had sexual feelings or something.

Give me a break.

I'm not a perfect person either. It's just that I gave up trying to b.s. about it a long time ago.

Do you really think, that if the Church says it supports virginity until marriage, that it means something else? Do you really think that 'sexual practices' you mentioned haven't been around as long as there have been people?

There are no special rules for you or anyone else.
Logged

Not posting
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #166 on: December 29, 2012, 10:15:47 PM »

I think WPM is taking "fulfill" as meaning "complete" or "accomplish"... so WPM is saying that the priest had his role, completed it, and now they have moved on...

I see.  Thanks for explaining for me.
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,992


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #167 on: January 01, 2013, 09:40:49 PM »

No offense, but this feeling of attachment you are mentioning seems to actually have been responsible for some of the worst atrocities in history
What of value hasn't?

, and is actually very animalistic in nature. It's about selfishness and the evolutionary desire to pass on your genes "I want to be the one to pass on my genes", "I want to be the one with the mates", "I want to own you", "You are MINE and I want you to only have sex with me".

1. Evolution is not a sentient being capable of selfishness. It is no more selfish than an ionic bond between two atoms.

2 Actually, hominid pair bonds insured the survival of the offspring by giving providing fathers an advantage in chance of paternity. Later hominids were not chimpanzees.

There is really nothing "spiritual" or "sacred" about this.
Biological drives and causes do not preclude spirituality or sacredness.


It's the precise reason why women throughout history have been viewed more as a sexual commodity than as people
No, that has to do, largely, with the fact that men are, on average, physically stronger than women, and how that plays into hunter-gatherer society, pastoral nomadic society, and agricultural society.

There is also the possibility that this--along with monogamy in general--originated from when prehistoric women--just like chimpanzees--would have promiscuous sex with everyone, and thus, whatever male she settled down with was forced to take care of her children--even if they were not his.
Except prehistoric humans, and later pre-human ancestors, were not chimpanzees, and were not harem-based. Furthermore, chimpanzee females don't "settle down" with a male, they are brought into harems based on dominance.

Monogamy and this feeling of attachment--along with the social taboo against being promiscuous--solved this problem for males by forcing females to have sex with only one male and staying committed to him, that way the male would only have to provide for his children opposed to the children from another male.
Monogamy did not originate as a Homo sapiens cultural taboo designed to subjugate women. It precedes Homo sapiens and has some degree of biological basis.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2013, 09:42:16 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,992


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #168 on: January 01, 2013, 09:45:16 PM »

I'm just asking an honest question and all of you--at least Biro and Kerdy to an extent--are going off on me like I asked a bad question or something. I'm just asking an honest question. In this modern day and age, how are we to know what is "too far" according to the Church? Sure, we obviously know that literal sexual intercourse is condemned except for married persons, but there are so many other sexual practices nowadays that it is hard to know where to draw the line from saving your virginity to being a downright prude.
According to the Church, you are only allowed to have sex with a person. The Church tells us how to relate to people as persons.

There are many conditions, practices, etc. in the world where you can have sex with a thing.

That said, it's a gradient.

You can't say that rape or a one night stand are indistinguishable from committed lovers who exchange some form of self sacrifice. We try to see the good in people trying to work things out the way they know how with what they've been given. Will not the Lord salvage what is redeemable from every moment of history somehow in his Kingdom?

We are given a standard by Christ to hold to, and are to bear witness to the world by holding to it. So Orthodox Christians don't have the practice of impersonal sex, of "dehypostasized" sexual activity. Sure, Orthodox Christians do it, we all sin. I sin. Regardless, the Sermon on the Mount is still written somewhere upon our hearts.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2013, 09:52:55 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Hiwot
Christ is Risen!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 1,959


Job 19:25-27


« Reply #169 on: January 02, 2013, 05:39:51 AM »

I'm just asking an honest question and all of you--at least Biro and Kerdy to an extent--are going off on me like I asked a bad question or something. I'm just asking an honest question. In this modern day and age, how are we to know what is "too far" according to the Church? Sure, we obviously know that literal sexual intercourse is condemned except for married persons, but there are so many other sexual practices nowadays that it is hard to know where to draw the line from saving your virginity to being a downright prude.
According to the Church, you are only allowed to have sex with a person. The Church tells us how to relate to people as persons.

There are many conditions, practices, etc. in the world where you can have sex with a thing.

That said, it's a gradient.

You can't say that rape or a one night stand are indistinguishable from committed lovers who exchange some form of self sacrifice. We try to see the good in people trying to work things out the way they know how with what they've been given. Will not the Lord salvage what is redeemable from every moment of history somehow in his Kingdom?

We are given a standard by Christ to hold to, and are to bear witness to the world by holding to it. So Orthodox Christians don't have the practice of impersonal sex, of "dehypostasized" sexual activity. Sure, Orthodox Christians do it, we all sin. I sin. Regardless, the Sermon on the Mount is still written somewhere upon our hearts.

Oh Nicholas! Profound points, beautifully made! a gem, in its soundness and its compassion. indeed in many ways and varying degrees each one of us is broken, but not irredeemable.for every sentence in the post thank you.

Logged

To God be the Glory in all things! Amen!

Only pray for me, that God would give me both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but truly will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one. St.Ignatius of Antioch.Epistle to the Romans.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,204



WWW
« Reply #170 on: January 02, 2013, 01:45:33 PM »

Psychologically, we feel attached to the person we have sex with. "Liberal" people think this is childish and something to be outgrown from in order to do it just like friends have drinks. It is not. It is what sex is meant to be: something that makes us feel closer to our partner. To "outgrow" this feeling, is the same as to "outgrow" the sensation of pain when we touch fire or the sensation of pleasure when feeling the wind blow on a sunny summer morning.

No offense, but this feeling of attachment you are mentioning seems to actually have been responsible for some of the worst atrocities in history, and is actually very animalistic in nature. It's about selfishness and the evolutionary desire to pass on your genes "I want to be the one to pass on my genes", "I want to be the one with the mates", "I want to own you", "You are MINE and I want you to only have sex with me".

Nobody knew about genes until the 20th century. People *never* thought of sex in terms of passing genes. At most they would think of their "names", keeping such and such property in the family, but definetly nothing of modern pseudo-biological rationalizations.

James, I would suggest you take a more existential approach to life. What is it that you experience when in this kind of situation? Do you really feel you want to pass your genes? Or it is simply the attachment? Never in my life, even when it was the basest of feelings I thought in genetic terms. In fact, most of the time people actively try to avoid having any babies in the process, some even getting to the point of killing their children in the womb.

You are right that that love can be corrupted and become possessive. Just like reason can become cold and psychopathic, peace can become apathy, faith can become idolatry, discernment can become self-righteousness and so on. Also, the feeling of attachment we have in and after sex is not spousal love itself, but it is meant to reinforce it.  And of course it is a sacred thing:

Quote
15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies. (1 Cor. 6:19-20)

See the warning? We are one body with every single person with whom we have had sex with in our lives and that remains so unless we have repented. And God does not unite Himself with such amorphic non-individuals. We must repent of every single intercourse with every single person that is not our wife/husband, even if done before marriage with consent. Each of those acts was an aggression to ourselves, to the other person, to our spouse and to God.

Our bodies don’t stop being the temples of the Holy Spirit during the sexual intercourse. And not only that, God’s very act of creating a soul may be materialized out of this act. And we are – or should be - undressing not only our bodies, but our very hearts before our spouse, letting the nakedness of the body be an icon of how we put ourselves before our spouses: without masks, clothes, in fragility, being vulnerable to the other out of love. In the Philokalia nakedness is classified as a *virtue*. Adam and Eve were created naked because “God saw it was good”.  And in that nakedness we proceed to a whole “ritual” of tenderness, of exchange of affection and pleasure that, despite any belief, is an icon of the union of God and the Church as seen in Canticle of Canticles.

Now, of course, we don’t live sex in that way. It is used as just one more toy to play with, even among spouses. But the way people live and use it is not what God meant it for. Surely, sex is necessary only as a provision for this fallen world. But that does not prevent God from sanctifying it, just like He sanctifies other such provisions as food, shelter and so on.  What we do with our bodies and hearts in these promiscuous fornications we live (and I include even heterosexual serial monogamy -  of which I am guilty too - rationalized as “necessary experiments to find out the ‘right’ person”) is exactly what we see in Daniel 5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%205&version=NIV ), a profanation of the Temple of God, an abomination put in the innermost altar of the temple, misusing that which is meant for God for mundane blasphemous frivolity. God have mercy on me for that, sin over sin!  Not only do we profane the temple of the Holy Spirit and use its chalices for debauchery, we do that in the name of using our sisters (or brothers in the case of girls) as “experiments” depriving them and us of the proper dignity of our personhood. That is why like a temple, it must be dedicated first in marriage, and be one and just one.

Quote
18 May your fountain be blessed,
    and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.
19 A loving doe, a graceful deer—
    may her breasts satisfy you always,
    may you ever be intoxicated with her love.
Proverbs 5

13 Another thing you do: You flood the Lord’s altar with tears. You weep and wail because he no longer looks with favor on your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from your hands. 14 You ask, “Why?” It is because the Lord is the witness between you and the wife of your youth. You have been unfaithful to her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.
15 Has not the one God made you? You belong to him in body and spirit. And what does the one God seek? Godly offspring.[a] So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful to the wife of your youth.
16 “The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,” says the Lord Almighty.
So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful.
Malachi 2

We mustn’t, of course, go to the radical opposite and make our bodies or sex more than sacred and an idol in itself. There are indeed people for whom sex is the “alpha and omega” of their lives, the core of their self-identity, the activity in which they have a sense of self-realization. That is idolatry if not outright a disease.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2013, 01:46:43 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,204



WWW
« Reply #171 on: January 02, 2013, 02:06:55 PM »

Now for what limit it is too far... it's always "difficult" with pleasurable things to define that because the real question our appetite is asking "how much can I do and still get away with it?" The spiritual danger is hidden under carnal pleasure so we are deceived. So let's think in terms of carnal danger to have a point of comparison.

Friends, specially very young ones, sometimes punch each other playfully. But when a punch is not a playful show of friendship but an actual punch? Can we "define" it by mere description of the mechanical act? It has to do with pain inflicted, intention and so on. There is no clear well-defined border. That's why sometimes the receiving end may get hurt even if the punching side did not mean to do it. One was playing, the other was being attacked, although the act is the very same one. That's where most date rapes start. It's "nothing" for the boy, but it's everything for the girl.

So, where is the limit between physical demonstrations of affection such as hugging and kissing, and sex? There is a physical side to it and a subjective side, but the latter is more important. For example, lust can be triggered by a mere thought, without any physical contact. That is already a sexual temptation. But no one would really accept the concept that an intercourse without desire is not sexual for the lack of lust. Actually, this can be even sicker than normal intercourse.

I personally think that any kind of contact beyond a kiss *is* sex even if not completed. Sex is not an individual act, but a series of acts. You can interrupt it, but a half-done cake is a cake not a pie. I don't for a second believe a person is virgin for just the lack of contact of male and female genitals. Virginity is not about that at all.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2013, 02:22:06 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Jonathan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 805


WWW
« Reply #172 on: January 02, 2013, 02:46:08 PM »

How far is too far is the wrong question. Is it sex or is it not sex is the wrong question.

Christ told us that if we look at a woman with lust we are committing fornication in our hearts. If one allows one's self to become wilfully aroused outside of marriage, this is not affection, it is erotic, and outside of marriage it has no place in the Christian life.

What is the purpose of any of the acts you've asked about outside of marriage?

The purpose of our lives are to live as servants of Christ. Finding the right spouse, discerning the calling to marriage is a godly thing. Dating one-on-one, getting to know someone in that context is great. But physical affection doesn't have a role there, there is no marriage yet. Dating for the sake of having companionship right now where there is no thought of marriage in sight is carrying burning coals and expecting not to be burned.

Life should be enjoyed. Finding your spouse should be enjoyable. The thrill of talking for hours and getting to know each other and falling in love and choosing to marry. Being married should be enjoyable. It isn't about denying pleasure. But it is about not taking marital pleasure outside of marriage by way of technicalities and definitions, when what we are called to is internal purity.

We all fall short of the ideal in one place or another or many, so we get up, repent, carry on, fall again, repeat... but we're really in danger if we start lying to ourselves and say we haven't fallen.

No one dealing honestly with themselves things that the sexual acts you mentioned (some of which have no place even within a Christian marriage) are ok because there is no intercourse. Physical displays of affection not leading to arousal, the same affection that could be shown a parent, is fine, even directed towards someone we have a great desire for, but more than that, once you are becoming aroused together and still enjoying each other, is clearly taking what is reserved for marriage outside of it.

This is very dangerous. It is very hard to stop at a level you have picked as ok for you and not move on. It is carrying a burning coal, do it long enough, and you will get burned, you will fall into greater sin. It is perhaps even more dangerous because the bond formed by these actives, being in physical contact with someone, being aroused by them, can cloud your judgement and blind you to incompatibilities that can lead you to a miserable marriage that will ruin the rest of your life. A fall into sin can be easily remedied by repentance. But focusing on pleasure now rather than seeking God's will, allowing yourself to be lead astray from the narrow path of God's calling into the wide path of pleasure for the sake of pleasure can lead you to make a choice that will lead you to a choice God hasn't made for you, and God gives a spouse to help with salvation, choosing another can have dire consequences, can lead to being pushed away from the Church. The irony is that it isn't even about giving up pleasure. The pleasure you can have in marriage with the blessing of God will be far greater than any fleeting pleasure you can snatch illegally through rationalizations, which will leave you feeling empty. And the purer you make yourself before marriage, whether through avoiding a fall, or repenting and getting up if you have previously fallen, and striving for purity, the greater your enjoyment in marriage.
Logged
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,854



« Reply #173 on: January 02, 2013, 05:56:25 PM »

Both Jonathan and Fabio have made some very good points.  The only thing I will add is that from a biological standpoint there is no such thing as "casual sex".  Orgasms release dopamine and more so when done with another person.  Saying casual sex makes just about as much sense as saying "casual heroin usage". 

If you have gotten to the point that you can screw a woman and feel nothing from it means that you have become totally inured to the emotions and chemicals that it is supposed to release.  Obviously, this is possible, but not a good thing.
Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,774


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #174 on: January 03, 2013, 05:12:38 AM »

All right, all right. Fine, you old people win. Sex is some special spiritual thing and I should struggle and stay abstinent. Fine. I will  Angry but I won't like it. Maybe God shouldn't have given me all these hormones.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #175 on: January 03, 2013, 07:35:08 AM »

All right, all right. Fine, you old people win. Sex is some special spiritual thing and I should struggle and stay abstinent. Fine. I will  Angry but I won't like it. Maybe God shouldn't have given me all these hormones.

Did you ever stop to think a struggle such as this is one way God finds out how devoted we are?  If you believe this is hard, stand by for a barrage of other struggles.
Logged
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,854



« Reply #176 on: January 03, 2013, 10:11:02 AM »

All right, all right. Fine, you old people win. Sex is some special spiritual thing and I should struggle and stay abstinent. Fine. I will  Angry but I won't like it. Maybe God shouldn't have given me all these hormones.

Dude, I don't like it either.  But I'm not going to lie to myself and to God and say that something that is something is nothing.

If you're going to sin, sin.  Just don't try and sugar coat it.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2013, 10:11:43 AM by vamrat » Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
Hiwot
Christ is Risen!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 1,959


Job 19:25-27


« Reply #177 on: January 03, 2013, 11:16:51 AM »

All right, all right. Fine, you old people win. Sex is some special spiritual thing and I should struggle and stay abstinent. Fine. I will  Angry but I won't like it. Maybe God shouldn't have given me all these hormones.

hehehe my dear James, I think its great you are asking these questions, not only for your sake but for many others as well. I for one got a lot of good stuff out of all these thoughtful and caring replies to your questions people are offering. I think if you from time to time reread these answers and give them some thought as well, they will help you to establish some internal strength and self mastery. you will see that you are more than your hormones ...no matter how powerful they are now. being a teenager can also mean having an ideal and having a nearly inexhaustible drive and zeal to live out that ideal,think about that... so it is not just being a priapic youth  Wink

as to the struggle, we all are in it, look how much people care for you here( both with the tough brotherly love and the patient gentle guidance you have seen) because they understand, they have been there and most of us I would venture are still in there ...struggling...we fall and we get back up again and continue to struggle... so may the Lord help us.

« Last Edit: January 03, 2013, 11:19:02 AM by Hiwot » Logged

To God be the Glory in all things! Amen!

Only pray for me, that God would give me both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but truly will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one. St.Ignatius of Antioch.Epistle to the Romans.
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,265

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #178 on: January 03, 2013, 11:53:32 AM »

All right, all right. Fine, you old people win. Sex is some special spiritual thing and I should struggle and stay abstinent. Fine. I will  Angry but I won't like it. Maybe God shouldn't have given me all these hormones.

Why is God responsible for your hormones?
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.499 seconds with 205 queries.