Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
FK, your wife is real. You don't have to believe she exists.
The Church believes the OT "prefigures" Christ. I just don't see any convincing evidence coming from the Church that this is so.
The OT reveals a God as shaped by Jewish myth and legend.
You know, this must be a generational thing, FK. I think the X-generation (is that as in "crossed-out" or "canceled"?) does not speak the same language as the generation before.
If you are using the word "person" and "personal" as human, then God is not personal at all, except through Christ.
In the old days of collect phone calls, you could have a "person-to-person" call, meaning one individual human being to another.
Obviously, you don't mean "personal" to mean "human" because God is not human yet you say God is "personal." In the West, you even call the Hypostases as "Persons" of the Holy Trinity! That in itself is a source of some theological knots, no doubt.
Now you say that you don't use the word "personal" as "private" or "intimate" I suppose (unless you have another definition of that word too!), yet you do use as such it when you say I don't have a personal relationship with all men.
In fact I do, in the manner you use the word: every time I communicate with another human being I am communicating with a person, which makes my communication "personal."
Now, your definition of what is a person also qualifies animals as "persons," as I have already pointed out to you. There is a dictionary definition and then there is a faddish usage of words. If we are going to use the latter, then we will be talking right past each other, as we have on many on occasion, and that in itself is a source of great misunderstanding, and even frustration.
The Orthodox Church had official doctrine, to which the whole Orthodox Community subscribes. Any official orthodox site is as good as any other, but remember some people write better than others, so naturally some sites will give you a better idea than others.
I like the Russian Catechism written by a very young and extremely talented bishop, Hilarion Alfeyev. But that's my preference.
I often use the official Greek Archidiocese of North America (GOARCH) site which is more than catechism. Occaisonally I also use the Serbian Orthodx site, but that is not in English.
Rarely, I will consult Orthodoxinfo.com, a very conservative source.
No, there is no one official Catechism of the Orthodox Church, but there is official Orthodox doctrine expressed by all Churches in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.
Christ was visible, tangible, physical Person among them and they knew Him as such. Only by becoming a man could God present Himself to us in such a way that we can relate to Him as human beings. When we think of God, when we visualize God, when we describe God, we can only do that through Christ. As Christ said to the disciples when they asked Him to show them the Father, paraphrasing "you have known me all along." In other words, take a good look, you are looking at the Father! And that's the only way you will ever know Him on earth.
we can know God personally is through the humanity of Christ, ........... WHICH YOU DENY He showed to those CLOSEST TO HIM on earth
I do not deny that He showed His humanity...He hungered, wept, and slept. He showed all the human characteristics of a human being. To the disciples, he was a human being by the name of Jesus, who was their teacher. That is the extent of their "personal" relationship with Him.
Obviously, Jesus socialized with those who were not His disciples, since He notes that they needed Him.
They needed Him as their physician, not their drinking buddy. To the bets of my knowledge, Jesus was not a drinking buddy with anyone.
No teacher-pupil relationship there
Vis-a vis His disciples, there was a strict teacher-pupil relationship.
Another example would be the wedding at Cana, as social an event as it gets. Do we suppose that Jesus went and just sat in a corner?
I have no clue, the Bible doesn't say what He did except order a miracle. Nothing personal there.
No, He was a guest and talked with people just like anyone else
Extra-Biblical beliefs?
And again, what do you suppose all the thousands of meals that Jesus shared with His disciples were like? Were they silent, or only filled with "shop-talk"?
Yes, just like the last supper and His whole ministry vis-a-vis His disciples, all His activities were lessons.
He related to us through Christ's humanity, as a Lord to His subjects. I don't think it qualifies as "personal" except in some "neo-speak." Personal relationships are intimate. God is not intimate with anyone.
No, I say that I have not see any credible evidence—yet! And as far as the "extra-Biblical Church" part, that's an oxymoron de jour. It depends what you consider the "Bible." The early Church, the original Church considered what you consider "Apocrypha" as part of the Bible, and included it in the canon. By removing part of the canon of the original Church, one cannot claim that same Church now being "extra-Biblical."
The second problem with your statement is that you seem to believe that the Bible "proves" (or is capable of "proving") the faith! It proves nothing, nothing more than the Koran proves Islam to be a "true" religion.
Well, it's not that anyone has to prove the Bible false, but the burden is on the Bible to prove itself true, FK! Extraordinary claims require extraodinary evidence.
What is a revelation? To some tribal shaman, a thought occurred that the rumbling volcano might be an angry god and that something had to be done to appease him. To make his conviction "true" he presets it as something the volcano god revealed to him. And when various sacrifices failed to "tame" the angry "god," they believed they didn't do enough, and the "god" didn't hear they prayers. Sounds familiar, right?
No, the man who wrote Exodus says that God said that's how it's going to work. There is absolutely zilch proof that God said anything. We only have evidence that someone wrote claiming that God said something.
As the OT proves a million times, when God says something, He MEANS it
OT proves nothing unless you already believe it's true!
Yet, from the general Orthodox readings I have been showed, I would still say that there are many Orthodox who probably think to this day that the OT is very important to Christianity. It's just an impression
Most Orthodox are firm believers. As such, the OT is "true" because they already believe it is true.
Just because I'm inarticulate and confused is no reason to be all reasonable and everything!
You are neither inarticulate nor confused, MD, so drop the pretense of humility. :)
Do we need to wonder what the will's "counting for something" might be?
Sometimes that might be helpful.
What do we "want" from our will, or what is outraged by the concepts of predestination and election, so Biblically attested (I would say) that we cannot simply blip them out?
You know, we all operate on the same principle, "feels-good, feels-bad," but the only difference is what feels good and what feels bad. Otherwise, we desire that which feels good.
As for Biblical predestination, yes there is such a thing, but the Orthodox (and I am pretty sure the Catholics as well) would say it is basically God's knowledge of our choices, not a choreographed script what we will do because God forces us to.
God gave us freedom precisely because no one can resist God's will. Robots can't love. He also gave us free will knowing that we can> resist the will of the devil. The "elect" are those who ask for God's help and submit to His will, willingly. We can do that by being restored through Baptism
If there is "thesis" of predestination and "antithesis" of freewill, then I am searching for the reconciling aufgehebung (is that a word?).
Predestination is the antithesis of free will only if the former is used to make decisions for us, rather than be a knowledge of the latter.
Aufgebung is a word, well sort of (see Hegel), but it is not spelled Aufgehbung, as that would imply more like "climbing" (up+going). Geben is to "give" and gehen is to "go." But you won't find Aufgebung in a dictionary. I believe Hegel used it as "synthesizing
Similarly, since my childhood I have longed for God. I do not think I 'chose' this. (The longing did not get in the way of my spending some years in lotus land, but the delights there could not make the longing go away -- and, besides, they all turned to "dirt and hair" after a while anyway.)
We all long for "love," whatever that love may be in our hearts. We also know that there is no universal definition of love (or God) and that it is whatever we behold inside that makes us feel 'loved."
It is also part of our nature, knowing time, that we wish what we love and what loves us to be forever, to never end, precisely because we love it! So, as we get older and wiser, we look for permanence and even eternity.
When we are young, the whole life is ahead of us (or so we think) and eternity doesn't play such a prominent role. We love the world and the world loves us. But no matter how you paint it, love is the "feels-good" of our motivational mechanism. We want it, we cling to it, we return to it, we long for it. But "it" is many things to many people.
When I resist my longing for donuts, sooner or later (like the next time I weigh the corpse) I feel that resisting my longing was freedom
I am not sure I follow what you mean by "resisting my longing...like nest time I weigh a corpse" but it is not entirely clear why your resisting of donuts was freedom. Freedom from what?
When I resist (with, as it seems, an alien resistance) my longing for God, I don't feel free.
Then why do you resist?
That's not true.
Well, .................................... ? :)
FK: "You appear to be unable to obey God when He says through Peter: "1 Peter 3:15..."
You have not shown me that it is God speaking through someone pretending to be Peter. You are telling me that it is. How convincing is that? Not very, FK.
You appear to accept the writings of the Church Fathers without much or any question, but you have great trouble accepting the authenticity of the Biblical authors themselves. Yet, your Church accepts the authenticity of these writers. Can't I just use your own Church to convince you? :) Or, does Orthodoxy deny that Peter wrote the epistles ascribed to his name, or that scripture is "God's word"?
If God gives you faith, as your side also believes, then you don't know why you believe any more than you know why you were born where you were born and why your eyes may be brown or blue or green. You can only say "because God gave it to me," which is the same as saying "I don't know."
I believe because God gave me irresistible grace. I was born on Long Island because that's where God wanted me to be born, and my eyes are green because that is my wife's favorite color for eyes. That God wants it is not at all the same as "I don't know". God tells us in the Bible to trust Him. By His grace I can do that with full knowledge that it is His will.
FK: "Well, I for one KNOW that my faith is stronger because it is in conformity with the reality of our world and existence."
You may know but you can't prove it. The reality of the world is a matter of our perception, so the only thing you can say is that your faith is in conformity with your perception of the world, or it is not.
Can we of different views have a common perception of the reality of the world? Schaeffer would say "absolutely YES!". However, he passed away 20 or so years ago, and such thinking may very well be passed.
FK: "We know that God created all matter with gravimetric properties."
We do? What verse is that?
I did not say or imply it was from the Bible. We know it now from scientific observation, and mathematical calculations. Gravity is logical to me, as it seems to prove out today and it does not offend scriptures.
Thank you for the kind words my brother! :)
“Most Orthodox are firm believers. As such, the OT is “true” because they already believe it is true.”
Indeed. There is nothing self-authenticating about the OT.
Kolo: Indeed. There is nothing self-authenticating about the OT.
Duck! Incoming! :)
That certainly is a terrific observation. They appear to trust the "church fathers" implicitly, yet they stumble on the word of God.
As God wills.
I believe because God gave me irresistible grace. I was born on Long Island because that's where God wanted me to be born, and my eyes are green because that is my wife's favorite color for eyes. That God wants it is not at all the same as "I don't know". God tells us in the Bible to trust Him. By His grace I can do that with full knowledge that it is His will.
lol. Your wife is very fortunate that God gave her such a wise husband. 8~)
Then you must declare God's INACTION to be an ACTION. Now, SOMETIMES, a failure to act really is an act. However, to assign blame, as you do on our behalf, you must assert a duty, which you cannot.
FK: You appear to accept the writings of the Church Fathers without much or any question, but you have great trouble accepting the authenticity of the Biblical authors themselves.
The Church Father give their opinions. The Church Fathers do not claim God is speaking through them. They merely express their faith. But you claim (a) that 1 Peter was written by Apostle Peter (who was dead when that book was written!), and (b) that the words in 1 Peter are those of God Himself, no less.
I am simply asking you (again for the nth time) to prove to me that it is God speaking through the author and that the author is indeed St. Peter even thought we know he was dead when 1 Peter was written (between 80-110 AD).
Yet, your Church accepts the authenticity of these writers. Can't I just use your own Church to convince you?
No!
Or, does Orthodoxy deny that Peter wrote the epistles ascribed to his name, or that scripture is "God's word"?
The Orthodox Church, to the best of my knowledge, accepts the authenticity of 1 Peter as scripture as far back as the 2nd century AD, and (probably, although I never heard or read anything about the subject from Orthodox sources) that it would be St. Peter's work as well.
It was one of those books that made it into the canon early because, to a large extent, it represent a badly needed reconciliation between St. Paul and St. Peter in terms of theology. The end of the first century also marks the beginning of wide-spread persecution of Christians unknown at the time of Perter (the one of Nero was an isolated incident limited to Rome).
This is evident also from his strongly Pauline language, signaling who of the two will be the defining Apostle of the faith. It's the historical framework and geographical facts that betray it was not written by Peter.
1 Peter begins in a positively Pauline language:
"To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance."
The "strangers" (exiles) in those areas were not there when Peter was alive in the mid 60's of the 1st century. They settled those areas when wide-spread Roman persecutions began, at the end of the first century! If he were to speak of exiles, he would have mentioned Rome, where Nero during Peter's lifetime castigated Christians. Yet 1 Peter doesn't even mention Rome.
Other sources of doubt include his impeccable and highly educated koine Greek (not the Galilean market Greek), as well as the fact that the author never recounts his personal experience with Christ but speaks only of the "suffering Christ." Surely, for someone who was singled out and had so many personal memories of Christ, he would have made it more personal than that!
Be it as it may, the Church accepted it and it's been canon ever since, and it would be very difficult for the Church to backtrack on anything for that matter. I do remind you that the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas were considered canon until the middle of the 4th century and are found in the Oldest Christian Bible.
For some unexplained reason between the middle and and the end of the 4th century they were "decommissioned" as being inspired. Once the canon was set, backtracking would mean the Church made a mistake and that's a big non, no.
I believe because God gave me irresistible grace
Well, if you say so. That Calvinist construct is simply not universally accepted among Christians.
I was born on Long Island because that's where God wanted me to be born, and my eyes are green because that is my wife's favorite color for eyes. That God wants it is not at all the same as "I don't know".
Well, this leads me back to Hitler...and you don't want to go there because you know well that if God controls everything we are and do, then it was He who created Hitler, who created him evil, and Who is ultimately behind the Holocaust because He preordained it.
You will have to show me that God wanted you to be born on Long island (that it would really matter where you were born) and that the color of your eyes is also something God willed. Then you can also tell me why is He making so many suffering children in this world!
My answer is that God doesn't create suffering children; we do. God did not create Hitler as evil. Hitler is responsible for his own evil. And as far as where we are born, it could be just pure chance or luck (bad luck or good luck, depends). But we really don't know, do we?
I did not say or imply it was from the Bible. We know it now from scientific observation, and mathematical calculations. Gravity is logical to me, as it seems to prove out today and it does not offend scriptures.
FK, gravity is a property of matter. We don't know why bodies attract. You can's say that something is "logical" if you don't know the cause of the effect. Today, we know that hygiene and communicable disease are connected because we know how diseases spread. So we can say that personal hygiene is a "logical aspect" of disease prevention. We can't say that gravity is a logical property of matter because we don't know what causes it.
Of course, we can always default to the Dark Ages and just say "God made it that way" and be done with it. In which case we would still be treating bubonic plague as a "curse" (as quite "logical") without taking any preventative steps to avoid its spread.
No, FK, I said "If God pre-ordained everything, then there is nothing you do or don't do without God's will acting on you." It's not blaming God. It's simply establishing whose doing all this is.
If there is no blame then there is no guilt and if there is no injustice then there is no justice either.
The idea of activity or idleness of God is also somewhat of an anthropomorphism. If God created everything and all outside of time, then what is He doing in time? If everything will happen according to His will, then why does He need to intervene? Is there a danger that His "plan" will not work, or that someone can railroad it? I don't think so.
Does it require divine intervention and guidance gven that everything has been preordained? I don't think so. One might really wonder what is God doing outside of time! After all, His work is done, isn't it? Or is it incomplete, which is to say imperfect?
Exactly ,dear Brother! Man's sin even disrupts human nature and all of nature itself
It should not be a surprise to anyone that the Tsunami in Indonesia took place in the part of the world where child pornography and child slavery runs rampant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.