Talk:Eastern Orthodox view of sin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Please try to conform with Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Clerical_names. Thank you everyone. Etz Haim 12:48, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Overview - Lets Discuss[edit]

There are some notable style differences in comparing the Russian and Greek Churches. I am not sure when or how these differences developed and I am certainly not critical of them, the church allows for these differences in "Typica". It would seem, perhaps because of the Russian book, "The way of the pilgrim" that the Staretz or spiritual Father is both rare and hard to find. I have spoken with some in the Russian church who hope, one day, to find a true spiritual father and learn from him. And if one considers the Staretz to be both exceptionally holy and even clairvoyant, then that search may take a lifetime and may never come to fruition.

But this has not been my experience in the Greek Church. Everyone I know has either a spiritual Father or Mother. These are not particularly holy people, though that might be a great asset. These are simply people blessed by the bishop to hear confessions. They are usually chosen for their inherent wisdom and compassion. They develop a special relationship with their charges and we only confess to Him/Her. It is believed that when we place out trust in them that God does speak through them and that they must be obeyed. Obedience to the Spiritual Guide is considered absolute and even a Patriarch cannot override their authority. Understand, that this is the way I was raised; it may not be the style you are used to. But I think it is a great way. It is not unusual for women to hold this position though it may be unusual for a man to have a female confessor. Who better to hear a married couples confessions than another married couple? Who better to hear a woman’s confession than another woman? The usual procedure is for me to make an appointment with my spiritual father the week before I intend to commune. We usually have lunch or dinner, and then go for a walk. I discuss my problems and he offers advice or occasionally sets me a task to complete. Then, on Sunday I tell the priest that I have confessed and wish to commune. He reads the prayers over me and I commune when the time comes. Phiddipus 21:57, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the main issue is that a distinction is made between a father-confessor spiritual father and a staretz. Some folks get really bent out of shape regarding using "spiritual father" as a synonym for "father-confessor," so I was essentially editing to conform to the view that draws more distinction. (I myself am not from the Russian tradition. "Spiritual father" is used in my home parish to refer simply to one's father-confessor.) So, perhaps we should simply just make the distinction clear.
One of the reaons that some folks can be so strenuous in their insistence that "spiritual father" not be synonymous with "father-confessor" is that especially some who are "Orthodox by choice" (the wording of our dean at the seminary where I'm studying) can sometimes expect their local father-confessor to be a staretz, even if he has no desire to be seen that way.
In any event, I don't think we disagree. --Preost 22:52, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary hasn't got an entry for "staretz" but has one for "starets". Etz Haim 21:47, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unverified claims concerning Western teaching[edit]

The Orthodox Church does not, however, hold with the views of Augustine of Hippo that sex is somehow inherently sinful, that one should only "descend to it with regret," (Where does he says this? Quotes? It's well known that Augustine saw celibacy as the only way for himself; but does that mean he wanted everyone to live this way?) which is more characteristic of western Christian theology [anti-sexuality] (Does he have quotes from some western authority to support this? Does he seriously mean that theologically motivated hush-hushs concerning sexualit never have existed in orthodox circles?) and has, for instance, influenced views on enforced (sic) clerical celibacy. (Sources?)

This statement about Augustine should be deleted, as it cannot be substantiated. Augustine holds that Adam and Eve did have sex before the fall, which means he cannot believe it is inherently sinful. See City of God 14. Procreation was sexual but as a farmer sowing seeds, entirely under the control of will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.98.50.138 (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Father Seraphim Rose wrote a great book called something like "The Place of Blessed Augustine in Orthodox Christianity" dealing with misconceptions about St. Augustine, especially in Orthodox circles. Though, I'd say it's common knowledge that Catholic, at least, priests are celibate, and Orthodox are not, I'm not sure that has much to do with St. Augustine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.254.195 (talk) 10:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Adam and Eve in Eden[edit]

Are you sure the Orthodox Church maintains that Adam and Eve did not have sex before the Fall in Eden? I wasn't aware there was a commonly held position (among the Orthodox fathers) on that. Tix 16:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We do not know what sexuality was before the fall. The Orthodox do not believe that it was the carnal animal-like union we now call sex, It was something spiritual.Phiddipus 20:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There does not -- at least to my knowledge -- appear to be any dogmatic teaching that Adam and Eve did not engage in sexual activity (e.g., the "holy" form, which would be blessed within the marriage union) in the Church. While we do not know what sexual activity was like per se (i.e., what sexuality specifically was like) before the Fall, it does not seem entirely consistant to say that Adam and Eve did NOT have sex. Sex as being "intrinsically connected" to the Fall could, I think, be taken the wrong way. --Hgais31 (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

This article does not conform to Wikipedia's npov guidelines; I have inserted a npov tag into the article. For example:

  • "The Fathers of the Eastern Orthodox Christian Church are not legalistic in their views of sin."
This sounds like something on which people could differ; the article takes a position on a disputed point.
  • "Sin does not exist as an abstract and must be approached on an individual basis."
The article should say something along the lines of "According to Orthodox doctirine, sin does not exist as an abstract and must be approached on an individual basis."
  • In dealing with homosexuality it is often necessary to deal with a far more destructive problem; the problem of prejudice.
Here, the article simply reads like a persuasive essay.

Once these and many other related issues are changed, and only at that point, the npov tag should be removed. --Zantastik 09:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first point is accurate in the way it was intended, but perhaps could be written better. The general point is that the Orthodox view sin more as a disease in need of healing, rather than as a legal infraction or series of legal infractions that are in need of a legal remedy. Perhaps "juridical" would be better than "legalistic"; I've heard both words used almost interchangably when discussing this idea. Wesley 04:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A number of changes have been made since the tag was added, some of them in an attempt to address the points raised here. Is everyone agreeable to removing the NPOV tag? If not, which parts of the article do you think still need to be addressed? Wesley 13:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the NPOV tag. The part about "not legalistic" could still use some more expansion though. Wesley 16:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

There seems to be a serious disconnect between the article's title and its content; perhaps this is just because the article is new? At any rate, the content chiefly discusses the Eastern Orthodox view of sexuality, not sin. I think it might be best or easiest to simply rename this article to Eastern Orthodox view of sexuality or something similar. If it were the EO view of sin, it would have more to say about Original Sin and its effects, the state of fallen humanity, the role of Christ's incarnation, death and resurrection in conquering sin, EO views of forgiveness, repentance, asceticism in various forms as they relate to overcoming sin, and so on. That article might make some brief mention of sexuality, with perhaps a link to this one for a fuller discussion. Thoughts? Wesley 04:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much else to add except to say that I agree with everything you write here. The article is grossly underdeveloped at this point. —Preost talk contribs 02:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add another voice in agreement. This is not an article about sin so much as an article about sexuality, which includes reference to sexual sin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.98.50.138 (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction in the Marriage section[edit]

The second and third paragraphs in the marriage section seem to blatantly contradict each other...

"...we could say that the Orthodox Church does not support any sexuality at all, neither homosexual or heterosexual—indeed, it supports celibacy as the favored path."

"...celibacy, while an honorable and holy state if done for the sake of the Kingdom, is not by any means the "favored" path for all Orthodox Christians."

See what I mean? --Soakologist 19:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is no contradiction here. The first use of the word "favored" refers to the general consensus of the Orthodox fathers that, as St Paul points out, that it is "Better" to be celibate. In the second case the term "Favored" means the most common or most popular path. It is true that Most Orthodox do not become monks or nuns, but this is a reflection not of a better path, but rather points out man's weakness for the flesh. Also, there is very little debate that Marriage in the Orthodox Church is temporary. Christ himself makes this very clear, “In Heaven they are neither married nor given in marriage, but are like the angels.” As to our relationships with one another, we loose nothing. Two people married on Earth will still remember their relationship in Heaven, but their union will be with God; their hearts and minds will be turned towards Him. They will have infinite love towards God and all mankind and their relationship with one another will be no more special that their relationship with any other living being.--Phiddipus 08:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that Meyendorff taught that marriage is eternal, interpreting the Fathers and the Scripture in that way. —Preost talk contribs 11:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise it is worth noting that there are many within the traditional end of the Orthodox Church that are not impressed with Fr. Meyendorff's writtings.--Phiddipus 05:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More on the Article Title[edit]

Further to Wesley edit above, the title is indeed misleading as it's the orthodox view of sexuality not of sin - as sin is a much more complex issue. Verblyud

I agree. This article overconcentrates on the sexual angle. There are many other kinds of sins in Christianity apart from these, e.g. lying, stealing, violence/murder, blasphemy etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.88.55 (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

notability[edit]

I tagged the whole article with notability because there is not enough sourced material to establish the need for a separate article on this topic apart from Eastern Orthodox Church. Most of this article is unsourced and the bits that are sourced are more like random observations about sex and marriage and do not contribute to a coherent article on the EO view of sin. I am thinking about nominating this article for AfD on these grounds. Mrhsj (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article could also just be merged with Sin. There is a subsection there on the Roman Catholic view of sin; it is pretty good and didn't require a separate article. Mrhsj (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though the topic may be notable, but given the precedence set by the treatment of RC view of sin, and the poor state of this article, I would suggest AfD. Reading through the article, there just isn't anything to merge into sin. The portions that might be desirable there are devoid of sources. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally wrong[edit]

This article needs total rewriting. In Orthodoxy there ARE mortal sins, typically called grave sins, as explained by Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov. NOT all sins are equal. Ugh ugh ugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.208.23 (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. The article sucks. If you removed everything that is unsourced, wrong, or irrelevant, you'd be left with a weak stub on the Orthodox view of marriage and sexuality. I tried to get it deleted but it was retained because everybody agreed that somebody else could theoretically write a good article on the subject. If you think you can fix it, go for it. Mrhsj (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eastern Orthodox view of sin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eastern_Orthodox_view_of_sin&oldid=1196333573"