Interestingly enough, this "dispassionate relationship to virtue" would definitely describe the Theotokos.

Post Edited (One Love) : 12/10/2009 12:33:19 AM (GMT-6)

It WOULD be a great "inhaler" for a possible "mold exposure" of inhumane humanity.

But hey, given that we (you and me, Tom) believe that God foreknew of sin's functional inevitability, that wouldn't be to out of the ball park, right?

God being the "Master Chessplayer"...

"Hmm...how do I ensure that, if humans fall into individuality and egocentricity, that there will STILL be some expression of ecstasis in their nature and, through that, opportunity for experiencing communion and otherness?  Basically, how do I ensure that my human images won't get solipsistically trapped in themselves?  WAIT!  I've GOT it... "

Post Edited (One Love) : 12/10/2009 1:30:17 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (One Love) : 12/10/2009 1:28:34 AM (GMT-6)

D: Given that we (you and me, Tom) believe that God foreknew of sin's functional inevitability, that wouldn't be to out of the ball park, right? God being the “Master Chessplayer”...

“Hmm...how do I ensure that, if humans fall into individuality and egocentricity, that there will STILL be some expression of ecstasis in their nature and, through that, opportunity for experiencing communion and otherness? Basically, how do I ensure that my human images won’t get solipsistically trapped in themselves? WAIT! I've GOT it…”

Tom: I think we need to keep in mind the distinction between the God-intended goodness of the original created order outfitted by God with the necessary epistemic distance and purposefully designed to empower us in the quest God INTENDS us to make (in the journey to personal becoming) on the one hand, and the God-intended theotic end-state on the other hand.

It’s not the case that everything from the first order that fails to endure into the second is either (a) a result of the fall (Maximus) or (b) a precaution God instituted knowing sin would inevitably erupt. There’s a third possibility that you’re overlooking, and it is that the gender distinction (aside from any consideration of possible or actual sin!) is part of the journey from the first order to the second that we all have to take. In other words, we HAVE to BECOME what God wants us to BE. But to say we ‘become something’ means we ultimately stop being something, i.e., we leave SOMETHING behind in becoming what God intends. But ‘becoming something’ also means we must first BE a certain SOMETHING appropriate to becoming what God intends. Obviously our being sinful isn’t necessary or appropriate to becoming what God intends. So Maximus’ view is OUT. Was he a saint? Yes. Should we take him very seriously? Yes. Are his words Scripture? No. Is he infallible? No. Can he be wrong on something? Yes. If that’s difficult for some Orthodox to embrace, all I can say is get over it.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that gender distinctions will disappear in the eschaton. I don’t mean that our bodies will still be ‘male’ and ‘female’ in embodied form but that this ‘distinction’ will be transcended so that it never becomes a ‘division’ (which is in fact my view). I mean let’s assume that the very physical distinction will disappear. We won’t have penises and vaginas (and whatever else defines ‘gender’) in heaven.

OK, the question still remains, How do we understand the gender distinction in God’s original plans? Was the gender distinction originally…

(a) an evil that resulted from the fall (Maximus)? Or

(b) a precautionary step taken by God to insure that if we screwed up we’d still have a way to avoid falling into utter solipsism?

Both these options (D takes the second) seem unacceptable to me on exegetical and theological grounds. It seems as obvious as can be (and not a lot is obvious from Gen. 1-3!) that the gender distinction preceded the fall. So option (a) is out. But the distinction is both “good” and constitutive of the image of God. We bear the divine image AS ‘male and female’, hardly the sort of thing you’d expect of a ‘temporary’ and ‘precautionary’ step God took just to outfit us for sin’s inevitability. So (b) is out.

We need a third option (c). And it’s not difficult to imagine:

(c) The gender distinction is  a good and necessary feature of the certain something we have to be so that we can become what God intends. You might say it shares in defining the necessary epistemic distance that we HAVE to have if we’re to take this journey and become what God wants. I can live with this if I had to choose between one of a, b, or c.

However, there’s a fourth option...

(d) Since the distinction between ‘male’ and ‘female’ is HOW we bear the divine image, God does not intend this distinction merely as a necessary but temporary feature of our becoming, but as a permanent feature of human embodied existence.

I favor this because it has the advantage of (a) taking seriously the text of Genesis that locates the divine image in the gender distinction (among other things), and (b) extending to the very form of our embodiment the sense in which human beings reflect God’s essential sociality. So this ‘distinction’ is a good and permanent feature of human being. Through sin it became a ‘division’. But that will not always be the case.

Tollefsen: But the final scope of man is, of course, to exist in a blessed community of human beings, together with other beings in a unity-in-plurality in God.

Tom: Nothing about options (c) or (d) conflict with this, D. In fact, (d) make BEST sense of being a blessed embodied community in a unity-in-plurality in God. If I hold to option (d) I can affirm all the unity and bliss of glorified human existence that you describe. Unless you want to argue that all ‘distinctions’ are by definition sinful ‘divisions’ (and you won’t attempt that), you have to argue that the gender distinction itself is irreducibly a sinful ‘division’ (and you can’t do that) or that it's permanence is incompatible with our being a blessed and glorified community in a unity-in-plurality in God. But I can't think of any good reasons to disparage the gender distinction as unfitting or unbecoming of such permanence.

And the whole double-creation thing, yeah. I can go with that. No big deal. Either of options (c) or (d) are compatible with that. But the double-creation thing doesn’t say anything about gender distinctions. Both creations would be governed by the one divine purpose, and the first creation would need all the features necessary for that journey. So we still have to parse all the features of the only actual world we’re given a description of (the second one) and try to say which features would have obtained in the first apart from any consideration of the second. Given the only text we have to go on, how is it not a HUGE leap to suggest that the gender distinction pertains to the second recreation while our bearing the divine image pertains (surely) to the first creation. The text makes that nearly impossible for me.

I’m serious ya’ll. I can’t AT ALL appreciate your attitude about gender difference and sex. What’s the deal? Why do you view it as incompatible with the eschaton? Surely you think we’ll have separate bodies anyhow, right? Why is a permanent multiplicity of embodied ordinal centers an OK 'distinction' but a further distinction between types of bodies NOT OK? 

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 12/10/2009 3:30:25 AM (GMT-6)

Jesus came to destroy who's works, again?

Post Edited (One Love) : 12/10/2009 3:37:06 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (One Love) : 12/10/2009 3:42:23 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (One Love) : 12/10/2009 3:57:20 AM (GMT-6)

"Meredith G. Kline presents a devastating exegetical critique of Barth's position."

Read more...

Post Edited (Tom) : 12/10/2009 4:35:52 AM (GMT-6)

The text you were "taking seriously" was Genesis 1:27, right? Sounds like Barth to me, dude.

Post Edited (One Love) : 12/10/2009 4:28:43 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Tom) : 12/10/2009 4:35:02 AM (GMT-6)

----------------------------------------

Question: "Will there be marriage in heaven?"

Answer: The Bible tells us, “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30). This was Jesus’ answer in response to a question concerning a woman who had been married multiple times in her life —whom would she be married to in heaven (Matthew 22:23-28)? Evidently, there will be no such thing as marriage in heaven. This does not mean that a husband and wife will no longer know each other in heaven. This also does not mean that a husband and wife could not still have a close relationship in heaven. What it does seem to indicate, though, is that a husband and wife will no longer be married in heaven.

Most likely, there will be no marriage in heaven simply because there will be no need for it. When God established marriage, He did so to fill certain needs. First, He saw that Adam was in need of a companion. “The LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him’” (Genesis 2:18). Eve was the solution to the problem of Adam’s loneliness, as well as his need for a “helper,” someone to come alongside him as his companion and go through life by his side. In heaven, however, there will be no loneliness, nor will there be any need for helpers. We will be surrounded by multitudes of believers and angels (Revelation 7:9), and all our needs will be met, including the need for companionship.

Second, God created marriage as a means of procreation and the filling of the earth with human beings. Heaven, however, will not be populated by procreation. Those who go to heaven will get there by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; they will not be created there by means of reproduction. Therefore, there is no purpose for marriage in heaven since there is no procreation or loneliness.

Post Edited (Tom) : 12/10/2009 4:53:00 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (One Love) : 12/10/2009 4:54:17 AM (GMT-6)