Christianity doesn`t make sense to me anymore

[biro]

P.S You(pl) are no more of a Christian than an "Atheists" .. At least this Atheists(Agnostics,etc) are sincere with whom they are..

What are you talking about?

 

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Yes.. Original Sin, why did Jesus came?


Ancestral Sin...

stay blessed,
habte selassie

Neither Christianity nor Ancestral Sin is "gangsta", dumb dumb.  Find a more appropriate picture to scold me.

That was so obvious a light hearted joke, about you're crossing out Original Sin, that I am quite sorry you didn't get it

stay blessed,
habte selassie

 

[J Michael]

P.S You(pl) are no more of a Christian than an "Atheists" .. At least this Atheists(Agnostics,etc) are sincere with whom they are..

What are you talking about?

He's just spewing, er...venting.  I'm sure he really has no idea what he's talking about.  Almost every time anyone asks for clarification they are either ignored or get an answer which only compounds the confusion.  He just wants to spew, er...vent and we've given him lots of opportunities.  You know what "they" say:

 

[Asteriktos]

He's just spewing, er...venting.  I'm sure he really has no idea what he's talking about.  Almost every time anyone asks for clarification they are either ignored or get an answer which only compounds the confusion.  He just wants to spew, er...vent and we've given him lots of opportunities. 

If true, there are better options than using the forum. For example...  :angel:

 

[J Michael]

He's just spewing, er...venting.  I'm sure he really has no idea what he's talking about.  Almost every time anyone asks for clarification they are either ignored or get an answer which only compounds the confusion.  He just wants to spew, er...vent and we've given him lots of opportunities. 

If true, there are better options than using the forum. For example...  :angel:

(Can't view youtube on this computer  )

You're right, but....he's *here*, and the more he gets fed, the more poop there is to clean up. 

 

[Azul]

i`m saying enough with this off-topics and let's get back to the subject.

1.How can God be, become a man?What does Jesus' Incarnation entail.. What precisely did it got Incarnated?The wholeness of God?His entire Being?

2.Why did Jesus came?If theosis was unattainable before his coming and if heaven was unattainable before his coming than we have a God that deprived us of something.And if an constient abode of the dead existed and all people went into Hades, than we have an angry, narcissistic , not so just and not so loving God.. What kind of God is so angry on humanity that makes us all to suffer for the sin of one?And if he was not angry than he was vain and narcisistic emprisoning souls into hades just to show Himself mercifull and a great redeemer.. But maybe it's not that maybe heaven was attainable even before the coming of Jesus.So the question than is what is the point of his coming, if heaven was attainable?How really does his coming makes people more heavenlike?

3.How really does Jesus save us?Save us from what exactly?! What does his Salvation entail?What does it mean?How does he save all men, taking in consideration that he became and was only one man.One man died on the cross, one man resurrected and one man ascended into glory.How does all this pass to us?It is still God's doing no?So all this infliction of Jesus was unecessary than.Because it is God who makes all these things to us because of Jesus.But Jesus was not a necessity God could always do those things to us.. Jesus was not a necessity unless He needed to appease God's something.. God's offended justice, God's anger, etc.. But what if there is something else to it?

For all those arguing against reason remmeber that God is Logos(Reason in Greek) and Jesus is Logos per John 1.And this thread is not for you.Adress my points dirrectly or be ignored.

You are being warned for 99 days for violating the rule on respecting other posters. It is one thing to disagree, it is another to resorting to foul language (in Reply 65), to use ad hominem (Reply 77) and now demanding your responders to answer your questions precisely as you wish them answered: "Adress my points dirrectly or be ignored." All of these instances betray a deep disrespect of your respondents. This forum is not your soap box and if you continue on your present path, I will have no choice but to put you on moderation. Second Chance​

 

[Azul]

He's just spewing, er...venting.  I'm sure he really has no idea what he's talking about.  Almost every time anyone asks for clarification they are either ignored or get an answer which only compounds the confusion.  He just wants to spew, er...vent and we've given him lots of opportunities. 

If true, there are better options than using the forum. For example...  :angel:

don`t get your perception of reality from the fountain of illusion, cyborgs and gossip.

 

[orthonorm]

He's just spewing, er...venting.  I'm sure he really has no idea what he's talking about.  Almost every time anyone asks for clarification they are either ignored or get an answer which only compounds the confusion.  He just wants to spew, er...vent and we've given him lots of opportunities.  

If true, there are better options than using the forum. For example...  :angel:

don`t get your perception of reality from the fountain of illusion, cyborgs and gossip.

Azul,

Let's take this up in an unsystematic manner later. I don't blame your response given the comments here.

You'll either be further confused in your conviction or further convicted in your confusion when we are finished.

Either way. It is win.

 

[J Michael]

He's just spewing, er...venting.  I'm sure he really has no idea what he's talking about.  Almost every time anyone asks for clarification they are either ignored or get an answer which only compounds the confusion.  He just wants to spew, er...vent and we've given him lots of opportunities.  

If true, there are better options than using the forum. For example...  :angel:

don`t get your perception of reality from the fountain of illusion, cyborgs and gossip.

Azul,

Let's take this up in an unsystematic manner later. I don't blame your response given the comments here.

You'll either be further confused in your conviction or further convicted in your confusion when we are finished.

Either way. It is win.

Or, if you prefer:

 

[FatherHLL]

At least this Atheists(Agnostics,etc) are sincere with whom they are..

Well, most are sincere and honest, except for the ones that deceptively list their faith as orthodox. 

 

[mabsoota]

dear azul, you remind me of friends and acquaintances i have met from this part of europe.
i will try again to respond.
God wanted a free will relationship with humans.
so we had to be given the chance to walk away from God as well as the chance to walk towards him.
when adam and eve preferred to get to be 'like God' on their own terms, without doing it God's way, they walked away from Him. when our relationship with God is damaged, we no longer find pleasure in being with Him.
the relationship needs to be repaired before we can come back to enjoying God's presence.

so God wanted to show us exactly how we could become 'like God' on God's terms. this involves humility (for God is humble despite His glory) and a change of our rebellious character to a loving one.
so God, in the person of God the Son, took on human nature and lived exactly as a human to show us how it should be done.
because the human nature was mortal (this is the curse of disobedience), God had to go as far as submitting to death, and God the Son went down to the place of the dead (hades).
but, being God, He did not die exactly as mortals die. He defeated sin and death and rose from the dead; thus raising human nature together with Him.
because of this event, all humans have the possibility to accept His gift of eternal life, and great peace in this life.
if the humans choose to refuse this gift, they are allowed to do so.

if i throw a free party and tell everyone who comes that they must wear a free scarf that i give them in order to come in, and then some people say 'i don't like the colour of the scarf, i won't wear it', is it me who punishes them by not allowing them entry?
(rhetorical question)
there is more in answer to your questions, but i hope this answers some of them.

there are some people in this forum who take care and attention to answer you, and i hope you can appreciate their efforts because they are educated people, including priests, who make an effort to explain very complex concepts in simple English on the internet.
i am personally impressed by their writing, especially father akimel.

 

[Jibrail Almuhajir]

At least this Atheists(Agnostics,etc) are sincere with whom they are..

Well, most are sincere and honest, except for the ones that deceptively list their faith as orthodox. 

 

[Azul]

dear azul, you remind me of friends and acquaintances i have met from this part of europe.
i will try again to respond.
God wanted a free will relationship with humans.
so we had to be given the chance to walk away from God as well as the chance to walk towards him.
when adam and eve preferred to get to be 'like God' on their own terms, without doing it God's way, they walked away from Him. when our relationship with God is damaged, we no longer find pleasure in being with Him.
the relationship needs to be repaired before we can come back to enjoying God's presence.

so God wanted to show us exactly how we could become 'like God' on God's terms. this involves humility (for God is humble despite His glory) and a change of our rebellious character to a loving one.
so God, in the person of God the Son, took on human nature and lived exactly as a human to show us how it should be done.
because the human nature was mortal (this is the curse of disobedience), God had to go as far as submitting to death, and God the Son went down to the place of the dead (hades).
but, being God, He did not die exactly as mortals die. He defeated sin and death and rose from the dead; thus raising human nature together with Him.
because of this event, all humans have the possibility to accept His gift of eternal life, and great peace in this life.
if the humans choose to refuse this gift, they are allowed to do so.

if i throw a free party and tell everyone who comes that they must wear a free scarf that i give them in order to come in, and then some people say 'i don't like the colour of the scarf, i won't wear it', is it me who punishes them by not allowing them entry?
(rhetorical question)
there is more in answer to your questions, but i hope this answers some of them.

there are some people in this forum who take care and attention to answer you, and i hope you can appreciate their efforts because they are educated people, including priests, who make an effort to explain very complex concepts in simple English on the internet.
i am personally impressed by their writing, especially father akimel.

God did not "have to" anything.. He is God he is not limited by anything.

What was this monstruos act that offended God so much as to punish the entire future humanity for it?

The Bible recalls other people defeating death and sin..

You said that because of Jesus(and his resurrection) we all have the capacity to accept his gift and eternal life, presuming that we did not have this capacity before.. This automatically interfears with another one of your sayings that God gave us free-will..

About the "free" party.. Yes, it is your fault.When something is conditional it is no longer free.And sometimes the cheapest and freest things cost us the most, as a certain saying goes.. And when a gift is conditional it ceases to be a gift.

 

[dzheremi]

God did not "have to" anything.. He is God he is not limited by anything.

Yes! Now you're getting somewhere. This is an answer to your earlier question about the incarnation. Good.

What was this monstruos act that offended God so much as to punish the entire future humanity for it?

I don't know if that's the right way to look at it. Our sin causes us to become distant from God by our own acts, and we inherited a propensity towards sin by virtue of being born into a humanity that is affected by the fall, but it's not like God is sitting up in heaven, stewing and being mad and plotting how to send us all to hell for being naughty. We're not Calvinists. So we do need a savior, but from the wages of our sin (the wages of sin being death, you'll recall), not from "angry dad" God.

The Bible recalls other people defeating death and sin.

No, no...not "defeating". Like we believe that St. Mary was personally sinless (or at least that is my understanding of the topic; I am new to Orthodoxy), but she did not herself defeat sin and death. Sin and death were still a problem, and she could not save anyone from them. Only God can, and only God (Jesus Christ, the Son) did.

You said that because of Jesus(and his resurrection) we all have the capacity to accept his gift and eternal life, presuming that we did not have this capacity before.. This automatically interfears with another one of your sayings that God gave us free-will.

How can these conflict when before Christ and His glorious resurrection, we didn't have eternal life? "...that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life", right? The gift was not even there yet. I thought that was the whole point of Christ's descent into Hades, because it is recognized that there are those who died before the coming of Christ who likewise need His gift.

About the "free" party.. Yes, it is your fault.When something is conditional it is no longer free.And sometimes the cheapest and freest things cost us the most, as a certain saying goes.. And when a gift is conditional it ceases to be a gift.

Maybe I am the one who is confused here, but it doesn't seem that you've understood Mabsoota's example. To put conditions on something does not make it no longer free. Something is only free when you don't have to PAY for it (that's what "free" means, in this sense; think about the difference between the words "gratuit" and "liber"*), not because there are no conditions. It is maybe a bit like receiving a rebate in the mail after buying a particular product. Generally to get those, you have to mail in the "proof of purchase". Nobody would consider this an unreasonable condition relative to the return, and I would hope that any Christian would see the parallel with Christianity here: You certainly can't just do NOTHING ("Once Saved, Always Saved"/"Eternal Security" is not a correct doctrine), but if you do what is asked of you as a follower of Christ, then your reward is great (in fact, my analogy is pretty poor because it's so very great; it'd be like mailing in a rebate for $5 and receiving more wealth than can ever be imagined in return).

* - I do not speak Romanian, but these are the Google translations of the two Spanish words (a language I do speak) I was thinking of, "gratis" and "libre".

 

[Azul]

God did not "have to" anything.. He is God he is not limited by anything.

Yes! Now you're getting somewhere. This is an answer to your earlier question about the incarnation. Good.

Why did he became incarnated than if he didn`t have to do it?

What was this monstruos act that offended God so much as to punish the entire future humanity for it?

I don't know if that's the right way to look at it. Our sin causes us to become distant from God by our own acts, and we inherited a propensity towards sin by virtue of being born into a humanity that is affected by the fall, but it's not like God is sitting up in heaven, stewing and being mad and plotting how to send us all to hell for being naughty. We're not Calvinists. So we do need a savior, but from the wages of our sin (the wages of sin being death, you'll recall), not from "angry dad" God.

How are we saved from the wages of sin = death?

The Bible recalls other people defeating death and sin.

No, no...not "defeating". Like we believe that St. Mary was personally sinless (or at least that is my understanding of the topic; I am new to Orthodoxy), but she did not herself defeat sin and death. Sin and death were still a problem, and she could not save anyone from them. Only God can, and only God (Jesus Christ, the Son) did.

Jesus was one man, he died one man, resurrected one man and was glorified one man.How does that afftect us?

You said that because of Jesus(and his resurrection) we all have the capacity to accept his gift and eternal life, presuming that we did not have this capacity before.. This automatically interfears with another one of your sayings that God gave us free-will.

How can these conflict when before Christ and His glorious resurrection, we didn't have eternal life? "...that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life", right? The gift was not even there yet. I thought that was the whole point of Christ's descent into Hades, because it is recognized that there are those who died before the coming of Christ who likewise need His gift.

Eihter we had this capacity to receive eternal life before Jesus or we didn`t have it.. Unless you look at Salvation as a judicial act.If we in our beings were incapable to perceive or to receive the eternal life than we didn`t have the free-will to do so.

About the "free" party.. Yes, it is your fault.When something is conditional it is no longer free.And sometimes the cheapest and freest things cost us the most, as a certain saying goes.. And when a gift is conditional it ceases to be a gift.

Maybe I am the one who is confused here, but it doesn't seem that you've understood Mabsoota's example. To put conditions on something does not make it no longer free. Something is only free when you don't have to PAY for it (that's what "free" means, in this sense; think about the difference between the words "gratuit" and "liber"*), not because there are no conditions. It is maybe a bit like receiving a rebate in the mail after buying a particular product. Generally to get those, you have to mail in the "proof of purchase". Nobody would consider this an unreasonable condition relative to the return, and I would hope that any Christian would see the parallel with Christianity here: You certainly can't just do NOTHING ("Once Saved, Always Saved"/"Eternal Security" is not a correct doctrine), but if you do what is asked of you as a follower of Christ, then your reward is great (in fact, my analogy is pretty poor because it's so very great; it'd be like mailing in a rebate for $5 and receiving more wealth than can ever be imagined in return).

* - I do not speak Romanian, but these are the Google translations of the two Spanish words (a language I do speak) I was thinking of, "gratis" and "libre".

When you put conditions on something it is no longer free.A gift by definitions is something spontaneous with no streams attached.It is no longer free if it has conditions, the price = the conditions..

 

[nichole.boz]

Azul, I commend to you Paul Evdokimov's book The Struggle with God.

When I find myself hitting bottom and wondering whether Christianity is true or not, I always return to the works of C. S. Lewis.  My favorites:  The Great Divorce, Mere Christianity, The Chronicles of Narnia, and the Space Trilogy.  Lewis speaks to my mind, heart, and imagination in a way that few other writers do.  Also see Lewis's letters to Sheldon Vanauken.  I am particularly moved by Lewis's response to the question, What if I believe and it turns out Christianity is false?

But supposing one believed and was wrong after all? Why, then you would have paid the universe a compliment it doesn't deserve. Your error would even so be more interesting and important than the reality. And yet how could. that be? How could. an idiotic universe have produced creatures whose mere dreams are so much stronger, better, subtler than itself?

In the end, I refuse to accept the despair of atheism.  I must stake my life on the gospel. 

   

Beautifully said.  Lewis is an INCREDIBLE writer for those of us who get caught up in the "what ifs". 

 

[Daedelus1138]

 I think "the Meaning of Jesus" by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright would explain alot more than any amount of Orthodox theology to somebody who doesn't "Get" the "big deal" about Christianity.     Frankly, Orthodox theology really is gibberish to the average non-Christian, and its not necessarily even the essence of the Gospel, which Jesus proclaimed as the "Reign of God" in opposition to oppression and evil.

 

[SolEX01]

 I think "the Meaning of Jesus" by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright would explain alot more than any amount of Orthodox theology to somebody who doesn't "Get" the "big deal" about Christianity.     Frankly, Orthodox theology really is gibberish to the average non-Christian,

Welcome back.  Merry Christmas! What happened to losing your "triumphantalism?"

 

[Daedelus1138]

Welcome back.  Merry Christmas! What happened to losing your "triumphantalism?"

  Merry Christmas.

  The triumphalism went hand in hand with losing a real, living faith in God, and trading it in for a religious ideology.  When I eventually lost the religious ideology, I lost the triumphalism.

 

[theistgal]

I've trodden the path of atheism and lost faith more than once so I'm not going to preach to you, Daedelus1138. Don't stop where you are now; keep looking for the Truth. Since Christ IS Truth, I believe you will find Him eventually, if that's what you're really looking for.

 

[biro]

 I think "the Meaning of Jesus" by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright would explain alot more than any amount of Orthodox theology to somebody who doesn't "Get" the "big deal" about Christianity.     Frankly, Orthodox theology really is gibberish to the average non-Christian, and its not necessarily even the essence of the Gospel, which Jesus proclaimed as the "Reign of God" in opposition to oppression and evil.

Oh boy.  :-[

 

[SolEX01]

Welcome back.  Merry Christmas! What happened to losing your "triumphantalism?"

  Merry Christmas.

   The triumphalism went hand in hand with losing a real, living faith in God, and trading it in for a religious ideology.  When I eventually lost the religious ideology, I lost the triumphalism.

How are Anglicans different from Orthodox and you can't say that Anglicans are more supportive of LGBTs?

 

[NicholasMyra]

evil.

What's evil?

 

[Daedelus1138]

How are Anglicans different from Orthodox and you can't say that Anglicans are more supportive of LGBTs?

  Anglicans are more theologically diverse, although I suppose their attitude is closet to the Eastern Orthodox of any Protestant group.  Anglicans have a great of respect for individualism.  Most of the sermons I hear at Episcopalian Churches are about sharing God's love with others and examining a persons behaviors and relationships to look for a deeper spiritual life and healing. It's actually not that different from what I heard at OCA churches, but perhaps the emphasis is more on the beauty of a spiritual life rather than some kind of metaphysics of theosis.  The Christmas Eve service at the Orlando cathedral was actually  mystical in tone.

  Anglicanism is undergoing a "listening process" regarding LGBT/gay individuals and their experiences, while officially, they support the traditional teachings of Christians on homosexuality.  Unofficially, there are a variety of views on homosexuality, but they do oppose bigotry and affirm the dignity of gays.    You will not often hear the "culture war" rhetoric of the Religious Right in that Church, because my impression is that Anglicans do not consider moralism to be the sine qua none of being a Christian.   

 

[SolEX01]

How are Anglicans different from Orthodox and you can't say that Anglicans are more supportive of LGBTs?

   Anglicans are more theologically diverse, although I suppose their attitude is closet to the Eastern Orthodox of any Protestant group.  Anglicans have a great of respect for individualism.

Individualism is religion of the self.  Why need another religion?

  Most of the sermons I hear at Episcopalian Churches are about sharing God's love with others and examining a persons behaviors and relationships to look for a deeper spiritual life and healing. It's actually not that different from what I heard at OCA churches, but perhaps the emphasis is more on the beauty of a spiritual life rather than some kind of metaphysics of theosis.  The Christmas Eve service at the Orlando cathedral was actually  mystical in tone.

In what way?

   Anglicanism is undergoing a "listening process" regarding LGBT/gay individuals and their experiences, while officially, they support the traditional teachings of Christians on homosexuality.   Unofficially, there are a variety of views on homosexuality, but they do oppose bigotry and affirm the dignity of gays.    You will not often hear the "culture war" rhetoric of the Religious Right in that Church, because my impression is that Anglicans do not consider moralism to be the sine qua none of being a Christian.

   

If there are no morals, what will exist?

 

[Daedelus1138]

Individualism is religion of the self.  Why need another religion?  

 Experience in the West has taught us that authoritarianism isn't spiritually healthy and that human autonomy is something good that needs to be respected.   I don't see a religion of self-denial as healthy (I do not mean asceticism, but rather pretending that a naive egolessness is desireable), rather it leads to distortions in the subconscious Jungian shadow, where we project all that is "evil" in us onto others, avoiding spiritual growth.

In what way?  

 The priest preached about the Incarnation as something quiet, subtle, and mysterious, and how we encounter God is in that ineffability that the liturgy and worship in the cathedral points to.

If there are no morals, what will exist?

 Jesus said loving your neighbor as yourself and loving God are the most important rules in the Bible, everything else depends on them.  I really think an ethic based around religious ideology, divorced from love, which in my mind includes authentic openness and vulnerability, is not a morality at all.  I've read reviews and recommendations of "Freedom of Morality" by Christos Yannaras, and had it commended to me in the past when I discussed here the complexity of having a morality that respects the individual's unique personhood.   I've also been reading Dietrich Bonhoeffer's "Letters in Prison" and many places he places a higher value on courage as a moral in itself, having the courage to do what we feel is right knowing we risk being wrong and knowing we will be forgiven.    I see this as a higher way to live, maybe the way of the holy fools, rather than trying to reduce morality to a fear of breaking rules.

What is healthy for me is to see the self in relationship to others, not apart from others, and to recognize my common life with others in God, and always aware of my own feelings and thoughts as my own feelings and thoughts, and not ignoring them.  It is something I have just started praying about when I feel the pull of too much darkness in my life.  But I no longer try to feel unlovable, unholy, wretched because I have this side of me.  I have given up on theosis a long time ago, it is a selfish idea anyways, the idea that I can, through my own power, be holier than others is a delusion.  The same streak of evil runs through all of us, so what is an ascetic trying to prove?  I really do believe in "total depravity", life is just a continual blundering about.  It would seem overwhelmingly sad, but the answer to this is a gentle heart, not moralism.

 

[Melodist]

the idea that I can, through my own power, be holier than others

That's not theosis.

what is an ascetic trying to prove?

Asceticism isn't about proving anything.

 

[Ashman618]

Individualism is religion of the self.  Why need another religion?  

 Experience in the West has taught us that authoritarianism isn't spiritually healthy and that human autonomy is something good that needs to be respected.   I don't see a religion of self-denial as healthy (I do not mean asceticism, but rather pretending that a naive egolessness is desireable), rather it leads to distortions in the subconscious Jungian shadow, where we project all that is "evil" in us onto others, avoiding spiritual growth.

In what way?  

 The priest preached about the Incarnation as something quiet, subtle, and mysterious, and how we encounter God is in that ineffability that the liturgy and worship in the cathedral points to.

If there are no morals, what will exist?

 Jesus said loving your neighbor as yourself and loving God are the most important rules in the Bible, everything else depends on them.  I really think an ethic based around religious ideology, divorced from love, which in my mind includes authentic openness and vulnerability, is not a morality at all.  I've read reviews and recommendations of "Freedom of Morality" by Christos Yannaras, and had it commended to me in the past when I discussed here the complexity of having a morality that respects the individual's unique personhood.   I've also been reading Dietrich Bonhoeffer's "Letters in Prison" and many places he places a higher value on courage as a moral in itself, having the courage to do what we feel is right knowing we risk being wrong and knowing we will be forgiven.    I see this as a higher way to live, maybe the way of the holy fools, rather than trying to reduce morality to a fear of breaking rules.

What is healthy for me is to see the self in relationship to others, not apart from others, and to recognize my common life with others in God, and always aware of my own feelings and thoughts as my own feelings and thoughts, and not ignoring them.  It is something I have just started praying about when I feel the pull of too much darkness in my life.  But I no longer try to feel unlovable, unholy, wretched because I have this side of me.  I have given up on theosis a long time ago, it is a selfish idea anyways, the idea that I can, through my own power, be holier than others is a delusion.  The same streak of evil runs through all of us, so what is an ascetic trying to prove?  I really do believe in "total depravity", life is just a continual blundering about.   It would seem overwhelmingly sad, but the answer to this is a gentle heart, not moralism.

Is this really the gospel? I don't mean that in a smart ass way I'm just not sure what your trying to say

 

[Daedelus1138]

Is this really the gospel? I don't mean that in a smart ass way I'm just not sure what your trying to say

  Jesus went into the synagogue and read from the Isaiah scroll, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me.." ... that is the Gospel.  The rest, the salvation about getting into heaven or theosis, is religious interpretation filtered through a good dose of politically convenient ideology.  It is always politically convenient and reactionary to make sin and reform an individual issue and privatize suffering and human misery.    Its one reason I now feel critical of Buddhism for instance, for instance...  it's too often a philosophy of passivity in the face of evil.  This is the perfect ideology for exploitation, either of the consumerist, or tyrranical authoritarian kind

 

[SolEX01]

Is this really the gospel? I don't mean that in a smart ass way I'm just not sure what your trying to say

  Jesus went into the synagogue and read from the Isaiah scroll, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me.." ... that is the Gospel.

The Gospel is more than 13 words.

The rest, the salvation about getting into heaven or theosis,

No, theosis isn't about getting into heaven.

is religious interpretation filtered through a good dose of politically convenient ideology.  It is always politically convenient and reactionary to make sin and reform an individual issue and privatize suffering and human misery.

I'm not familiar with the works you mentioned; however, I don't see where you're getting the idea of privatized suffering and human misery.

Its one reason I now feel critical of Buddhism for instance, for instance...  it's too often a philosophy of passivity in the face of evil.  This is the perfect ideology for exploitation, either of the consumerist, or tyrranical authoritarian kind

Who's doing the exploiting that you mention?  ???

 

[SolEX01]

Experience in the West has taught us that authoritarianism isn't spiritually healthy and that human autonomy is something good that needs to be respected.

I do what I want when I want - how is that autonomy?

I don't see a religion of self-denial as healthy (I do not mean asceticism, but rather pretending that a naive egolessness is desireable), rather it leads to distortions in the subconscious Jungian shadow, where we project all that is "evil" in us onto others, avoiding spiritual growth.

You've really sunk yourself into the abyss of modern psychotherapy.

The priest preached about the Incarnation as something quiet, subtle, and mysterious, and how we encounter God is in that ineffability that the liturgy and worship in the cathedral points to.

The first part is not mysticism.  The Orthodox believe in the Incarnation of Christ as a great mystery.

Jesus said loving your neighbor as yourself and loving God are the most important rules in the Bible, everything else depends on them.  I really think an ethic based around religious ideology, divorced from love, which in my mind includes authentic openness and vulnerability, is not a morality at all.  I've read reviews and recommendations of "Freedom of Morality" by Christos Yannaras, and had it commended to me in the past when I discussed here the complexity of having a morality that respects the individual's unique personhood.   I've also been reading Dietrich Bonhoeffer's "Letters in Prison" and many places he places a higher value on courage as a moral in itself, having the courage to do what we feel is right knowing we risk being wrong and knowing we will be forgiven.    I see this as a higher way to live, maybe the way of the holy fools, rather than trying to reduce morality to a fear of breaking rules.

If you don't break the rule, you're OK.  Otherwise, there are consequences for breaking rules.  There were consequences for Adam and Eve when they disobeyed God.

What is healthy for me is to see the self in relationship to others, not apart from others, and to recognize my common life with others in God, and always aware of my own feelings and thoughts as my own feelings and thoughts, and not ignoring them.  It is something I have just started praying about when I feel the pull of too much darkness in my life.  But I no longer try to feel unlovable, unholy, wretched because I have this side of me.

You can support LGBTs and not feel unlovable, unholy and wretched.  In Orthodoxy, one can't be an actively sexual LGB (some people can't help being T; however, they can't be both male and female).

I have given up on theosis a long time ago, it is a selfish idea anyways, the idea that I can, through my own power, be holier than others is a delusion.  The same streak of evil runs through all of us, so what is an ascetic trying to prove?  I really do believe in "total depravity", life is just a continual blundering about.   It would seem overwhelmingly sad, but the answer to this is a gentle heart, not moralism.

You just worship the constructs of man and found a place in the Episcopal Church where worshiping the constructs of man is perfectly acceptable.

 

[LBK]

distortions in the subconscious Jungian shadow, where we project all that is "evil" in us onto others, avoiding spiritual growth.

What does Jungian "psychology" have to do with Orthodox Christianity??  :

 

[NicholasMyra]

Jungian Shadow.  :laugh:

 

[orthonorm]

Is this really the gospel? I don't mean that in a smart ass way I'm just not sure what your trying to say

  Jesus went into the synagogue and read from the Isaiah scroll, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me.." ... that is the Gospel.  The rest, the salvation about getting into heaven or theosis, is religious interpretation filtered through a good dose of politically convenient ideology.  It is always politically convenient and reactionary to make sin and reform an individual issue and privatize suffering and human misery.    Its one reason I now feel critical of Buddhism for instance, for instance...  it's too often a philosophy of passivity in the face of evil.  This is the perfect ideology for exploitation, either of the consumerist, or tyrranical authoritarian kind

Good for you. (This is not ironic nor patronizing. It's orthonormish for saying, well I don't know cause I would say something else.)

 

[orthonorm]

You can support LGBTs and not feel unlovable, unholy and wretched.  In Orthodoxy, one can't be an actively sexual LGB (some people can't help being T; however, they can't be both male and female).

Nearly everyone I've met is both "male" and "female". I say nearly only in case of a faulty memory.

 

[SolEX01]

You can support LGBTs and not feel unlovable, unholy and wretched.  In Orthodoxy, one can't be an actively sexual LGB (some people can't help being T; however, they can't be both male and female).

Nearly everyone I've met is both "male" and "female". I say nearly only in case of a faulty memory.

There are issues if a "male" tries to use the ladies' room.  There are not enough family restrooms which would satisfy both.

 

[LucianNae]

Please explain Christianity to me.

God became man so man could become god.

how?why?

Why? Because He loves us and does not want us to be lost.


How? (here)

John 1:1-20

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)


1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.

4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7 This man came for a witness, to give testimony of the light, that all men might believe through him.

8 He was not the light, but was to give testimony of the light.

9 That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name.

13 Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

15 John beareth witness of him, and crieth out, saying: This was he of whom I spoke: He that shall come after me, is preferred before me: because he was before me.

16 And of his fulness we all have received, and grace for grace.

17 For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Would you mind elaborating on the "how"? What are the mechanics through which Jesus's incarnation, life, sufferings, death, resurrection and ascension turn mankind into gods?

 

[Ainnir]

Would you mind elaborating on the "how"? What are the mechanics through which Jesus's incarnation, life, sufferings, death, resurrection and ascension turn mankind into gods?

What do you mean by "mechanics"?

 

[LucianNae]

I mean the logical inference. Why do the events that happened with Jesus Christ have the deification of mankind as a logical consequence? I don't follow why it was necessary for the whole thing to happen. Protestants have the whole penal substitution doctrine (which doesn't really make a lot of sense to me either) to explain the crucifixion, but I don't understand the reason for Jesus' suffering in the Christus Victor model of the atonement. What does Jesus' sacrifice achieve and how does it do it? The whole thing seems like a non sequitur to me.