- May 8, 2014
- Reaction score
- Eugene, OR
The need to reproduce assumes incompleteness of the race of man. But you're deflecting the point, which is that there's plainly been no encompassing survey of the Fathers in this thread. This evidently doesn't bother anyone who already held Iconodule's underlying opinion, but I am bothered by cavalier indictment of our Church for any cause.JamesRottnek said:But isn't the more telling point: No one objects to the claim that in the Resurrection, there won't be sexual activity? I've always understood the Orthodox understanding of humanity in the age to come as being that humanity will be most truly human. If that's the case (and if one accepts that there is no sexual activity in the age to come), then it follows that to be most-human, or truly-human, one shouldn't have sex.Rohzek said:There are a number of other interpretations of sexuality on Genesis, especially in the Latin tradition. Some explicitly state that sexuality of both Adam and Eve preexisted the Fall. Angelomus of Luxeuil argues, for example, that Adam did so without concupiscence. That is to say, in a manner that was different from the rest of animals. It is important to acknowledge the various traditions in Orthodox Christian thought.Cavaradossi said:The arguments against it weren't even worth the bytes of storage they took up on the servers.Porter ODoran said:On the contrary, it's already been called out upthread for being clumsy and tendentious, and it certainly doesn't amount to a substantive survey of the Fathers academically, and in fact lacks any direct citations even if they were only of its own side.
Mina, I don't see how you can be the unbiased moderator of this particular topic when you have some notoriety for ambivalence toward the anthropology of the Fathers.
Cavaradossi, I see you're taking your hat, so adieu.