Was Sexual Perversion The Original Sin?

[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.

[Apotheoun]

My point is this: until a man energizes the power of a virtue he cannot be said to have practiced that virtue, so in the case of the virtue of justice, one is just only when he has acted justly. To describe Adam and Eve as "just" from the moment of their creation involves confusing nature (i.e., the various properties present in human nature as a capacity to be fulfilled) with person (i.e., the enactment of inherent powers that brings them to act in a concrete manner).

It is the personal actualization of the virtues that likens a man to God (i.e., the process of [i]theosis[/i]), which is precisely what Adam failed to do thus causing the fall.

Edited November 17, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='17 November 2009 - 03:42 PM' timestamp='1258490522' post='2004355']
My point is this: until a man energizes the power of a virtue he cannot be said to have practiced that virtue, so in the case of the virtue of justice, one is just only when he has acted justly. To describe Adam and Eve as "just" from the moment of their creation involves confusing nature (i.e., the various properties present in human nature as a capacity to be fulfilled) with person (i.e., the enactment of inherent powers that brings them to act in a concrete manner).

It is the personal actualization of the virtues that likens a man to God (i.e., the process of [i]theosis[/i]), which is precisely what Adam failed to do thus causing the fall.
[/quote]
Ah, then yes, that seems to be at odds with the Western tradition. Justice involves a right relation with others, principally with God. Removing the specific theological background of the term "justice," would you say that Adam was at his creation in proper relation to God?

I think that is what we mean by justice...not that Adam was practicing the virtue of justice, but that his original situation was a just one, i.e. that he was made in right relation to God.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Raphael' date='17 November 2009 - 07:46 PM' timestamp='1258512371' post='2004627']Ah, then yes, that seems to be at odds with the Western tradition. [/quote]
Yes, it does appear that way, because the East see salvation as involving the reintegration of man's nature, or more precisely his natural virtues, with his personal employment of his nature (See St. Maximos, [u]Disputation with Pyrrhus[/u]). To put it another way, Adam - by his disobedience - introduced a division, beyond the ontological distinction intended by God, between nature and person.

[quote name='Raphael' date='17 November 2009 - 07:46 PM' timestamp='1258512371' post='2004627']Justice involves a right relation with others, principally with God. Removing the specific theological background of the term "justice," would you say that Adam was at his creation in proper relation to God? [/quote]
Adam is naturally in a right relation to God at the moment of his creation because he is innocent, i.e., he has committed no sins, but he is called to be more than innocent, which is a purely passive state, he is called to become just, holy, righteous, etc., and this requires personal acts of will on his part, through which he actualizes the powers latently present in his nature. The same can be said of a new born baby, who is innocent before God, but who is supposed to recapitulate Christ's virtues throughout his earthly life.

[quote name='Raphael' date='17 November 2009 - 07:46 PM' timestamp='1258512371' post='2004627']I think that is what we mean by justice...not that Adam was practicing the virtue of justice, but that his original situation was a just one, i.e. that he was made in right relation to God.[/quote]
I think that you are correct in saying that that is the Western position, but that position fails to recognize the proper distinction - without a separation - between nature and person, and between the image of God ([i]eikon Theô[/i]) and the likeness to God ([i]omoíosis Theô[/i]) spoken of in scripture.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='17 November 2009 - 10:01 PM' timestamp='1258513296' post='2004633']
Yes, it does appear that way, because the East see salvation as involving the reintegration of man's nature, or more precisely his natural virtues, with his personal employment of his nature (See St. Maximos, [u]Disputation with Pyrrhus[/u]). To put it another way, Adam - by his disobedience - introduced a division, beyond the ontological distinction intended by God, between nature and person.[/quote]

I'd have to make sure I understand you precisely, but I don't see a disagreement between East and West on this. That which man has the natural capacity to be and to do he fails at through sin. Man does not actualize his potential, and that division you made reference to could in the West be considered the stain of original sin (granted the West is more legalistic in its definition).


[quote]Adam is naturally in a right relation to God at the moment of his creation because he is innocent, i.e., he has committed no sins, but he is called to be more than innocent, which is a purely passive state, he is called to become just, holy, righteous, etc., and this requires personal acts of will on his part, through which he actualizes the powers latently present in his nature. The same can be said of a new born baby, who is innocent before God, but who is supposed to recapitulate Christ's virtues throughout his earthly life. [/quote]

I suspect this may be an issue of a lack of nuance on the part of the West. We are probably using the term "justice" to refer both to what you call righteousness and to what you call innocence. A clearer definition could be required of Western theology.


[quote]I think that you are correct in saying that that is the Western position, but that position fails to recognize the proper distinction - without a separation - between nature and person, and between the image of God ([i]eikon Theô[/i]) and the likeness to God ([i]omoíosis Theô[/i]) spoken of in scripture.[/quote]

St. Basil of Caesarea speakes on the distinction between image and likeness, correct? I think the West agrees, but again, I think it is a matter of nuance.

You know me; I would much rather assume that East and West agree and simply have not come to see with each other's eyes than that they disagree and express a division within the Church. There is much that can be gained in the Western Church by trying to see through the eyes of the East, which expresses a less legalistic and more total, natural, realistic (I'm searching for the right word here) definition of the faith. I'm enjoying this discussion.

[StColette]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='16 November 2009 - 10:33 PM' timestamp='1258428780' post='2004103']
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.

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?

[/quote]

You're not off base, but your Hebrew may need a little assistance The only word used in Genesis to refer to the serpent is "nachash" (not transliterated as nahash because it's pronounced nakash) though later in the Old Testament we do see a King named Nahash which roughly means serpent. It simply means serpent, not little serpent as you implied. The only other word meaning serpent used in Genesis is transliterated as "tanniyn" meaning sea monster/whale/serpent.

There are two pretty strong possible interpretations for what is taking place in Genesis 3 between the serpent and Eve, both show a failure of Adam in his role as guardian of Eve and the Garden. One interpretation would show that the serpent and Eve were alone during the conversation, as previously talked about in this thread the RSV-CE2, the DRV, the Latin Vulgate, and the Hebrew do not refer to Adam being "with her". The Septuagint and NAB have "with her" in them but this could be relational like "she belongs to him" or "he belongs to her" rather than a proximal (ie physically with her or one another). If this is the case, we must wonder where in the world was Adam, why was he not with Eve keeping watch over her. Another interpretation, possibly supported by the Septuagint & NAB translations, that Adam was with Eve but kept silent during the whole conversation between Eve and the serpent. Again this would show failure on Adam's part to protect Eve from possible harm. Whenever God would give instruction to Adam & Eve, He would always speak directly to Adam and then Adam would instruct Eve. This shows us the I guess you could say proper chain of command, God to Husband, Husband to Wife. Genesis 3 would show us Eve speaking in a role that is not proper to her, ie Head of House. So Adam would be allowing his wife to speak and make a decision that was not proper to her role. Also, as Micah mentioned, the very fact that the serpent was roaming around the Garden reflects poorly on Adam's role as guardian of the Garden & Eve. The serpent should have not been there in the Garden to begin with. So you're on the right track to say that it makes an interesting inclusio (inclusion) to see Christ defending His bride but Adam failing to defend his.


[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.
[/quote]

The Hebrew verb form of "you" used in the conversation with Eve & the serpent is in fact plural, but it can also be used as the formal you, like we see in French (vous - means "yall" or "you (formal)".