Was Sexual Perversion The Original Sin?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='13 November 2009 - 06:21 AM' timestamp='1258111289' post='2002066']
The only way sexual perversion would be there is if the fruit-tree is a metaphor and the 2nd law is thus directed back toward the first. The only way to violate the first is by sexual perversion of some sort. The sexual perversion would be the outward action of disobedience - the eating of the fruit - motivated by the internal action of pride.
[/quote]
Technically, they could theoretically have rejected sexuality all together (we always assume perversion, but maybe it was the other way) and still would have violated the command to be fruitful. Not that I have any evidence that they did reject sexuality.

I do agree that prideful disobedience could be acted out in a twist with sexual sin. While I think Ott's first statement on the doctrine is a reflection of the binding teaching of the Church, his second statement saying that sexual sin wasn't the culprit is, I believe, his own speculation. I don't think they're mutually exclusive.

However, I also don't think it was a sexual sin, at least not primarily.

[Apotheoun]

The ancestral sin, as I understand it, was a sin of pride, which had nothing in particular to do with sex.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Raphael' date='13 November 2009 - 09:32 AM' timestamp='1258122779' post='2002103']
Technically, they could theoretically have rejected sexuality all together (we always assume perversion, but maybe it was the other way) and still would have violated the command to be fruitful. Not that I have any evidence that they did reject sexuality.

I do agree that prideful disobedience could be acted out in a twist with sexual sin. While I think Ott's first statement on the doctrine is a reflection of the binding teaching of the Church, his second statement saying that sexual sin wasn't the culprit is, I believe, his own speculation. I don't think they're mutually exclusive.

However, I also don't think it was a sexual sin, at least not primarily.
[/quote]

I agree that the ultimate nature of original sin was fundamentally on the same level as that of Lucifer and his followers; pride, maximized into a sort of self-divinization. And again, to be clear, I am not asserting that the external action spawned by the pride was sexual perversion. It is mere speculation, and that is why I posted it here, to see if there can be any corroboration with the Fathers in support of the theory.

[Ziggamafu]

Eh. I am formally giving up on the idea. Too much apparently fruitless effort. It is not vital to my paper (which, btw, is on the ecclesiological opposition to autonomous individualism throughout history). I just thought it would be neat if an argument could be made that tied the contraceptive mentality to original sin. Thank you all, for your thoughts and help.

[StColette]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='13 November 2009 - 09:29 AM' timestamp='1258122588' post='2002100']
I have no where near as much time as Jennie, but we were just talking about this in Eschatology and Dr. Martin said that the idea that Adam & Eve's sin was sex has been brought up before and has always been rejected based on the biblical evidence. We didn't get into a lot of detail, but it was clear he meant to tell us there was no room for such an interpretation.
[/quote]

I think I'm going to send Dr. Bergsma an email or facebook message about this. I don't remember him touching on this interpretation during Pentateuch. That class was pretty thorough too.

[StColette]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='13 November 2009 - 09:52 AM' timestamp='1258123975' post='2002117']
Eh. I am formally giving up on the idea. Too much apparently fruitless effort. It is not vital to my paper (which, btw, is on the ecclesiological opposition to autonomous individualism throughout history). I just thought it would be neat if an argument could be made that tied the contraceptive mentality to original sin. Thank you all, for your thoughts and help.
[/quote]


I wouldn't give up on the argument that the contraceptive mentality is tied to original sin. I would just approach it differently. As I mentioned in my first post the clothing of Adam and Eve shows a division now between man and wife that was not there previously. No longer are they open fully to one another (symbolized by them hiding their private areas with clothing). They shield themselves not only from God but from one another. That freedom to be completely venerable and exposed openly to one another is replaced by shame. You could use this approach (that original sin created a "barrier" or "division" between the spouses) which the result in today's society is the contraceptive mentality.

[N/A Gone]

I might be completely off base here.

I know about the pride issue with the apple, and rejecting the only command from God, but I studied a while ago the idea of another issue happening.

[quote]1 Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the animals that the LORD God had made. The serpent asked the woman, "Did God really tell you not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?"
2 The woman answered the serpent: "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden;
3 it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, 'You shall not eat it or even touch it, lest you die.'"
4 But the serpent said to the woman: "You certainly will not die!
5 No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad."
6 The woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.[/quote]

We see that the serpent is speaking to both Adam and Eve. We also know from our basic Hebrew that serpent was not "little snake" (nahash). Understanding that Paul makes the comparison to Christ as the "new Adam" makes me believe that Adam did something wrong to start the fall. Otherwise the New Eve would be the dominate role. So Christ sacrificing himself for his bride makes me believe that Adam should have defended Eve from the serpent but he did not. Perhaps that was at least an aspect of the fall?

Just my rambling.

(The sexual perversion idea seems like a reach where one would need to already be thinking of sexual sin. Perhaps it could be an allegorical sense, but not the literal event)

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Just because Adam should have defended Eve doesn't mean he had to be addressed directly by Satan. His job was as an active guard in taking care of the garden. The very fact that the devil was able to get in stands as a testament against him, regardless of whether Satan spoke to him directly.

[N/A Gone]

Oh, I know he was not addressed directly. What we do see in the Hebrew is that serpent spoke in a plural sense so there was more then just eve.

Micah, is the rest of this theory correct?

btw, If Adam and Eve had original justice how could they ever choose to go against God?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='17 November 2009 - 11:23 AM' timestamp='1258475003' post='2004237']
Oh, I know he was not addressed directly. What we do see in the Hebrew is that serpent spoke in a plural sense so there was more then just eve.

Micah, is the rest of this theory correct?

btw, If Adam and Eve had original justice how could they ever choose to go against God?
[/quote]
I'm really not going to say if a theory is correct or incorrect. Jennie's specialty is Scripture.

Original justice does not mean that there is a lack of free will, it simply makes that act of the will all the more defiant. Whatever it was, it was a very serious act of Adam and Eve going against their nature knowing exactly how wicked that was.

[N/A Gone]

Then why did they do it?

So Original Justice means that they understood right from wrong (not confused like our will can sometimes be) and still choose to disobey?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='17 November 2009 - 10:38 AM' timestamp='1258479530' post='2004261']
Then why did they do it?

So Original Justice means that they understood right from wrong (not confused like our will can sometimes be) and still choose to disobey?
[/quote]
Eastern Christianity teaches that Adam and Eve were created innocent (like children) with the potential to become just by the actualization of that virtue in their lives.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='17 November 2009 - 01:10 PM' timestamp='1258481437' post='2004273']
Eastern Christianity teaches that Adam and Eve were created innocent (like children) with the potential to become just by the actualization of that virtue in their lives.
[/quote]
Without being an expert on the specific teachings of the West on original justice, I think we would agree that at their creation, Adam and Eve had not actualized their justice (since they had not yet acted), but that justice was part of their nature, and therefore it would be correct to say that they were just. Before ever making a moral choice, they had a state of justice rather than an act of justice.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Raphael' date='17 November 2009 - 12:36 PM' timestamp='1258486595' post='2004317']
Without being an expert on the specific teachings of the West on original justice, I think we would agree that at their creation, Adam and Eve had not actualized their justice (since they had not yet acted), but that justice was part of their nature, and therefore it would be correct to say that they were just. Before ever making a moral choice, they had a state of justice rather than an act of justice.
[/quote]
I know that Hassan will hate this, but this is where the distinction between power ([i]dynamis[/i]) and energy ([i]energeia[/i]) comes into play in Eastern theology. We possess all virtues as powers of our being ([i]ousia[/i]), but we do not exemplify them until we personally ([i]enhypostatically[/i]) energize them.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='17 November 2009 - 02:50 PM' timestamp='1258487406' post='2004326']
I know that Hassan will hate this, but this is where the distinction between power ([i]dynamis[/i]) and energy ([i]energeia[/i]) comes into play in Eastern theology. We possess all virtues as powers of our being ([i]ousia[/i]), but we do not exemplify them until we personally ([i]enhypostatically[/i]) energize them.
[/quote]
I think that the specific wording would have to be worked out, but I don't see any reason the West would disagree in our own terms.