Been dipping into some orthodox ways of thinking recently. I really like the way Orthodoxy approaches sexuality.( At least this guy) I like how it's not a 'behavior modification' focus. But creation, purpose focused. Not meant to stir the denominational pot, but just wanted to see if anyone else thought this way because I really relate to it Points that stood out to me: 10:00 Women create with their bodies..Men create with our hands..we build things. I would say that one of the fundamental problems / reasons why there's such a misunderstanding about what sexuality is and what it's for, is because we miss that about the nature and character of the man. 11:00 The soul desires..What a man desires most of all, is the gratification that comes when he creates something, and when that act of creation ties into his own personality, his own distinctives...when a man discovers and develops those things and creates, he becomes like God, because God fundamentally is Creator...when creation is finished, God looks upon it and 'saw that it was good.' He was satisfied. We're like that! They pour the desire in their soul for the gratification that comes from work, they pour it into sex...so they get hooked because the soul desires the gratification that comes from work but it can't come from porn. 18:30 Eros is part of love. But because we're oversexualized culturally we confuse the word Eros and we automatically put it into the 'erotic' category and we assume it's about sexuality. It's not. Eros fundamentally is about that creative power. ..It takes the stuff and substance of creation to fashion it into something good. In Genesis God did it through speaking...what we do is we take the stuff that has been created and we refashion it, and it actually reflects our image, just like the creation reflects the image of God. 27:20 I don't think the problem is really porn, I think the problem is masturbation, self abuse...because what masturbation is , is a redirecting of the creative desire in the wrong direction... God gave you hands, these hands are made for creating something. They're not made to manipulate your genitals...What's happening here is, he is seeking the gratification that comes from real creative work by misusing a part of his body that's also created for creativity... I approach the problem as misdirected desire. 32:05 Some parts of us in the soul are like a dry sponge... a sponge is still a sponge, but a dry sponge doesn't do what it's designed to do. But throw water on it and it springs to life. Parts of our souls are like that. The water is the counsel of another man...This is why brotherhood is so important..
This line of thinking seems reductionist and inappropriately gendered. So women do *not* create with their hands? They're only "like God" when they are bearing children? What about women who do not reproduce? What about men who are handicapped and cannot work with their hands? Don't we also create with our minds? Don't women also desire the gratification that comes from creating something (and not just children)? I don't see anything here that applies specifically or especially to men. I do not think he means to play down the severity of P, but that is what it sounds like. The problem, of course, is ultimately lust -- a desire to control and possess another human being, a wish for someone to sate you sexually without any regard for them at all, to turn that person into an object, a thing, a *not* human. It is the opposite of creation. It is destruction in its truest, most complete, most terrible sense. And anything that feeds lust must be eliminated, whether that be P or MO or, as is usually the case, both.
Conversations on this topic are difficult. I feel that many Christians think far more philosophically than biblically, especially those from Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions. Protestants are often guilty of something similar, though. I don't mean that philosophy per se is wrong, inappropriate, etc. I just mean that if we're talking about what God has revealed when it comes to the question of male and female, then it becomes imperative to head straight to the Scriptures rather than philosophical, physiological, and psychological differences. It's not that Scripture is going to contradict science, but science itself does not provide any guidance when it comes to value or meaning. For example, in my tradition (Reformed Protestant), we speak of "the cultural mandate" or "the creation mandate": that of being fruitful, multiplying, filling the land, exercising dominion, etc, that we read of in Genesis 1 and 2. That "mandate" seems to jive with a bit of what you're saying when you speak of building and child-bearing. I have yet to see a discussion on the topic that accounts for the fact that Adam fell and that Jesus is the second/last Adam. In other words, what if we are to understand Jesus as the one who fulfills the cultural mandate? And might there be any sense in which we are called to fulfill the mandate in union with Christ, and how is that to be qualified due on our fallenness and our relationship with him? I'm fully comfortable with the idea of sexed proclivities--differences between male and female. Paul himself hints at this when he speaks of a woman needing to respect her husband and a man needing to love his wife. Of course respect and love are not specifically male or female, but there is likely something to the sexed emphasis he places on these qualities in a relationship. Thanks for tolerating my ramblings which are not designed to provide any answers, and only show how complicated the matter is (in my own mind, anyway). I agree with Tao's concern about downplaying of porn in distinction from masturbation. The speaker is thinking so philosophically that he's denied what to us porn addicts is a very clear reality: porn/lust is the most serious issue, not that some semen is redirected to a non-creative goal. (What would the speaker say in regard to wet dreams?)
So, what I'm getting from his approach is that these are general, overarching ways of describing the order of creation. Nowhere does he say that women do not find satisfaction when they create with their hands, or that they are only "like God" when childbearing. Or that women who are infertile are "lesser". I don't read into what he doesn't say. Since women are also created in His image, of course they also find gratification in creation of all sorts (including tangible things). I take what he's saying as generalities, not meant to square men and women in tight boxes. Of course there are ladies out there who find more fulfillment than some men in building things with their hands. I think he is making the observation that in general, men find greater fulfillment in accomplishing the tangible things, than do women. And that this hints at the structure of creation. I believe he does mention at one point that he doesn't mean to downplay porn. In fact, he's quite involved in helping get men out of the addiction, so I don't think he takes it lightly at all. Perhaps the taking of quotations, without hearing the full conversation, makes it seem so. I 100% agree! Self indulgence is pure consumption, the very opposite of creation. I think this is why his approach to help men find what they can constructively create has been effective. It is, in essence, engaging the opposite of consumption. To me, I find it a helpful view, merely than just the "fighting a battle" mentality. the "creation" perspective is helpful, in addition to the "fighting" perspective. It helps give me something to aim for. Not just to fight against.
Thanks for your ramblings, I do appreciate them. Rambling is speech, and speech is creation, so it's like a messy creation. Thanks for considering what I posted worthwhile enough to direct your unique, creative logos! I myself did not get the impression that he was talking about semen retention/redirection. Or that he downplayed porn (wondering if you guys watched the interview now ). I myself never had an issue with wet dreams. They do not involve the will/lust, so they are not wrong. It is a natural release, which completely makes sense if a man does not have a wife, does not masturbate because he is engaged in creative endeavors, and therefore has no other method of release of semen. In that scenario it perfectly fits with the natural design in creation. The way I saw it, was that he was speaking to the sin of lust from a different angle. As truly dis-order, not rightly ordered in creation. Not to take away responsibility from our own choices. But in the framework of purpose, creation, and values. To me, it added some gravitas to sin actually. I think that years of struggling with this sin has in some ways numbed me to the "reformed protestant" way of thinking about sin. As a debt, or legal transgression. Of course these are ways to see sin (and ways revealed in Scripture). But not the only way. Sin is also dis-order, chaos, death. Sometimes a different angle helps to grasp eternal truths, you know? I do think that the reflex to "head straight to the scriptures" does betray the heavily reformed/protestant presence on these forums. Which is not a bad thing at all . This is closest to my own upbringing and faith tradition. Perhaps it is the years of growing up in that tradition that factors into my interest of some Ortho ways of thinking, as it is new to me. I think people are way more complicated than their denominations/labels. And I try to give others the space & time to wrestle with their beliefs, doubts, etc. I hope the same can be offered to me Again, this wasn't meant to initiate debate. Hoped to share something that resonated with me, and that might help someone else by approaching the issue from a different light. onward brothers!
I sincerely appreciate the chance to interact via this forum. Each morning I come here and almost every morning I leave more inspired to do God's will and with a renewed determination to fight temptation. So, I thank all for participating and allowing me to participate. As long as a post is not likely to awaken a temptation or otherwise lead someone away from Our Lord, I appreciate the freedom to post whatever one is thinking. I admit the Orthodox philosophy shared in this particular post did not resonate with me but I see it resonated with someone who is also on the path alongside each of us. So, I can only say, please continue to share your thoughts, consider the reactions your post may garner and grow together with all of us towards a greater love for Christ.
I did not watch the full interview, so my comments should be taken with a grain of salt. No need to apologize for anything, @Vicit_fidem ! We learn by sharing with others what we think and then "iron sharpens iron" -- which can't help but produce some sparks! As long as we remember to love one another in all we do and say, some vigorous, healthy debate can be very productive indeed!
Amen to that✌️Conversing through text also removes alot of what real communication is, non verbally. So questions directed at me online likely come across more pointed than they would otherwise be in person And no worries , I never apologized for my aforementioned ramblings Your own shared thoughts are always a gift for us @Tao Jones . We stumble and ramble upward!
Well, I will apologize for commenting without watching the video (which you picked up on). I've got it open in a tab, no promises, but I have more of an interest in watching it now. I understand your concern with a more narrow Reformed Protestant view of sin. I think some extremely significant developments in biblical studies have come along over the past 100 or so years as scholars have been awakened to the significance of the ancient Near Eastern context in which the Old Testament was written. So, yes to the Reformed Protestant view of sin--but yes also to the immensely significant background context that amazingly opens up the teaching of the Scriptures. I read a dissertation recently (unfortunately, a very expensive book) that was so good I will never read the books of the Bible this work covered again the same way. There is, actually, an important tie in to what you are getting at. I will just hint at it here and let it percolate in your mind--if you want some book recommendations, feel free to send me a message. Anyway, here's a few important points: 1. Genesis 1 describes the creation of the world, but it is actually the description of the building of a temple (the cosmos is a temple). Both are three-storied: heaven/holy of holies, earth/holy place, sea/outer court. A lot more could be said about this. 2. Genesis 2 describes the creation of the priesthood. Genesis 2:15, "The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it." It turns out that the Hebrew word for "work" can also be translated "serve" or "worship." The Hebrew word for "keep" can be translated "guard." The only other place these two verbs are used together in the Pentateuch, and frequently, is in connection with the priesthood. The priesthood is to worship Yahweh and guard the tabernacle, the place of God's Presence, so that people would not die. Genesis 2:15 should be translated, "Yahweh God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to worship and guard it." Again, a lot more could be said about all of this. I've not watched the video yet. But it seems the connection is that of man copying God in a sense of being creative with his hands. Actually, that is not what Genesis is about. The point is not that man copies God in his creative endeavors. It is actually that mankind was created to be a priesthood, to worship and to guard the presence of God. (The Fall can be reconsidered in this light.) This is the real context for a more accurate understanding of Genesis 1-3, and so much more of the Bible. Our theology has yet to catch up with all of these findings. It is not that Reformed Protestant theology is wrong, it is that it is flat; it is 100% true, it's just that much more could be said. I have plenty of book recommendations that prove without any doubt that what I'm saying here is accurate. So what does it mean that God created mankind to serve as a priesthood before his awesome Presence? (Of course Christ eventually fulfills this role in its true and full sense.) How does this apply to us today? And in what way does this influence our understanding of the male-female dynamic? All of that has yet to be worked out. I will say, though, that ultimately, and fundamentally, I think Adam and Eve represent God and his people, Christ and the church--and that this symbolic meaning of Adam and Eve was there from the very beginning. So, again, another question: what does Adam as Christ and Eve as the church mean for the male-female dynamic? I don't have answers to these questions. Again, I'm just showing how complex it is. It would seem that the imaginative world of priesthood is more proper than the imaginative world of creating when it comes to the role of mankind. Sadly, I don't think many Christians know about these ideas.
This is quite the amazing statement which has now piqued my interest haha. Please share I like this way of putting it. It is kind of like how the gospel (or the truth) is a multifaceted jewel. But I've only been taught to stare at one angle/facet in the footsteps of on tradition that had only been around in the past x number of years. When in fact, there are many other luminous angles to view this jewel at. Thanks for brainstorming out loud I don't have answers either, but it's fun to bounce ideas around. I do really like the framework of priesthood and service you mention. It fulfills that thing in me which tells me I am for something bigger than myself. It gives a sort of gravitas to all of life. I am wondering, wouldn't it be cool if the creative is nested within the priesthood/service framework? Then, it can be both/and! So practically speaking, like how they built the first temple. It was literal creative work, for the higher calling of priesthood/service. And today, post incarnation, what Jesus did on the cross blew open the doors for everything to become "holy creative service" in a sense? That's a cool way of looking at it. It's like what Jesus did on the cross "purified" all forms of occupation, making it "acceptable" , because in actuality what matters is not the "role" of the service, but the heart within the role? Like you can be a line cook, a pastry chef, a football player, a teacher, carpenter, oil rigger, home maker, literal artists; all these things are made "priesthood" because the hearts of those who embody them are made right with God via Spirit transformation..something like that. That would encompass all of life as service to God. So nothing is too little or insignificant to be done (a la Brother Lawrence ). forgive the rambling. it's fun haha
Jesus flattened all the hierarchies, humbling those on top and exalting the lowly. In the Kingdom economy, *all* work can be sacred. We are *all* priests before him. Colossians 3 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving.
