Yes, but don't forget about the Second Coming of Christ. Christ will not be "humiliated" and crucified that time. It seems to me again that you're refusing to accept the fullness of God, and instead prefer a truncated kitsch of an idol.I dont know What I seek, But I definitely dont want to live under the terror I have experienced for over a year Now, and Nietzsche has just helped me a little bit, But far from completely. I never meant God is so and so, that is What I experience that christians have done that I have spoken to and that is not possible to accept for me. But if I can say God is so and so in any way, I can say that he is as revealed in Christ. And he is there crucified and the opposite of a rulling King as We normally understand the world. He rules in Christ by being humiliated and crucified and yet he resurrcts — Beebert
You are correct with regards to Calvin, but not so with regards to Aquinas. Aquinas did allow for truths that are beyond our understanding and that we take on faith. Furthermore, at the end of his life after his mystical vision, he abandoned the writing of his Summa, saying it is "like straw" compared to what he had seen. Thus, he would probably agree with you himself.You have misunderstood me. I object to Calvin and Aquinas precisely because of this fact. Calvin's sovereign God is stuck in Calvin's pocket — Beebert
Being in the image of God doesn't mean that we can comprehend God though.If God is so completely Other as you describe him to be, so impossible to understand even the slightest, then how are We in his likeness? — Beebert
No, I don't think so.And wasnt the distinction between good and evil, all these judgements, something that occured Because of the fall? — Beebert
What about the serpent? The serpent was evil before the Fall.Because how can a difference exist if evil doesnt exist as before the fall? — Beebert
Because it's not based on Scripture or Apostolic Tradition - in addition it also makes little sense.Considering how you reason though, how can you so confidentely reject a doctrine like double predestination? — Beebert
I don't understand your obsession with the weak and humiliated Christ. Yes, Christ was weak and humiliated, yes Christ also turned the other cheek, but don't forget when Christ grabbed the whip and chased the money-lenders out of the temple. You keep giving a false portrait of Christ, as if that was His only side.The world Will be judged based on how their hearts meet the image of the weak, humiliated God in Christ. So the weakness of his Will be strength. — Beebert
What do we mean to "know" evil? Because there's two different senses here. One is to know that something is evil - which we can know even before the Fall - and two is to know the effects of evil, to know evil subjectively, which we don't.But we cant say "this is evil" if we dont know evil at all, right? — Beebert
Why not? He could have known that breaking God's commandment is evil, but he couldn't know subjectively the effects this would have.When God said that Adam will die if he eats the tree, he cant have understood what God meant. — Beebert
Well we've already gone over those sections of Scripture though, and I've explained them. With regards to predestination and election, your question is borne out of fear, which is a problem. Why are you afraid? If you are unrighteous, you should want God to punish you. You should go to God and ask for punishment. Why are you afraid of His punishment? Look what Jesus says:Please explain to me how it doesnt make sense, that would be exceptionally important for me to understand since that doctrine seems like the Only logical conclusion to me and is the main reason I object to christianity... I can tell you why I believe in this doctrine as the Only conclusion to draw from Christian doctrines about God etc (för example, that God is completely uncontrolable and does what he wills also means that it is entirely possible that he wants a person to be destroyed, which my own inability to Believe seems to suggest to me... And also Scripture supports it: Romans 9 etc) — Beebert
The Church by all means can be a controlling institution, but I think you can appreciate that holding a group of people together is difficult. Also ensuring that this group of people has the core of the faith correct is also difficult. I agree with you regarding the internal movements of the soul. Why do you think you need to trust in a priest? A priest can be helpful, but it depends on the priest. Not all priests are good at what they do.I know the orthodox church believes in sacraments etc. but I find it hard to adjust my thinking to their view, and I have a hard time trusting in priests etc. Also, if the internal movements of the soul aren't there, I object to the idea that external signs and mysteries will be of any help(like confessions, the eucharist etc)... — Beebert
Yes, I agree. But even these "superficial" believers are closer to God than the apathetic atheists who don't even care. Like those in Nietzsche's fable as you pointed out. Those superficial believers are one of the reasons why I haven't yet joined the orthodox forum. Though there are some great people there that I've been following!Many orthodox seem to reason like that if they only confess to a priest and drink wine and eat bread in the church, they will be saved... That is also to try to control God it seems to me — Beebert
Yes.When our moral character is shaped according to the dictates of a universal moral power, the question of “what kind of man should I be” or "how shall I behave?" is simply a given where the answer lies not with the will of the individual, but with the will of God, right? — Beebert
To follow? As in be their disciple? None. But some have very interesting things to say, though not on all topics. Anastasios, Iconodule, GiC, Fr. George, Jetavan, Papist to name a few. Not all listed here are Orthodox though.Please name some member on the orthodox forum that you find great to follow — Beebert
Yes, they are because you don't leave them alone. Again, not everyone is meant to be an intellectual, or to explore God's mysteries in depth. There's people and people. You have to understand and value everyone.though understandable in a way because I provoke them constantly, but I do it because their conformity to things that to me seems to be of no help provokes me — Beebert
I wouldn't say they're hypocrites, but they're just more superficial believers. There's nothing wrong with that. Not everyone was made for the life of thought, or for going into depths into God's mysteries. Most of them to tend to keep the commandments of God and try to live moral lives.But how can you stand being in a church where most people are hypocrites? — Beebert
Baptism and the Eucharist are symbolic of spiritual movements.why then does the infallible Orthodox Church claim that baptism actually effectively saves you, when combined with the Eucharist? — Beebert
Because otherwise most people wouldn't go over their sins and ask to be forgiven.And why is confession demanded? — Beebert
The Church doesn't claim it's impossible to be saved while officially outside of it. In other words you can be spiritually inside the Church without being physically in it, or before being physically in it.Why does the Church call itself the ark of salvation or sometimes in history even that there is no salvation outside it? — Beebert
They CAN be, for people like you.But I think that if christianity IS the truth, then the superficial believers are the greatest problem, because they give the outside world the completely wrong picture of what true christianity is. — Beebert
I'm sure he could understand what is meant by it, you don't need to experience a thing to know what it means afterall. But obviously he didn't know spiritually and subjectively what death meant.But before the fall, man didn't even know what was meant by death, since there was no death before the fall according to christianity. — Beebert
Or in your friend, William Blake's words, man was innocent, and thereby incapable of doing evil by himself - that's why an outside force, the serpent, was needed to encourage and pressure him to do evil.But the whole tree is called the tree of knowledge between good and evil. So as Berdyaev said, in the paradise state, man was beyond good and evil, because the distinction didn't exist within his soul. — Beebert
Well yes, but it is in the spirit of Nietzsche. For Nietzsche just meant to ask the hardest and most horrifying question and answer it affirmatively, thereby affirming life, whatever it may be.There is a difference between Nietzcshe's thought and eternal punishment. — Beebert
he was, in fact, essentially a [/b][ poet[[/b] not a deep thinker. — John Gould
Yes, now put down your poetry book! >:) (joking)Are you actually suggesting that poets aren't "deep" thinkers? :-| — Buxtebuddha
There is a difference between Nietzcshe's thought and eternal punishment. I wouldn't be afraid of baring consequences of my actions and choices, but Nietzsche at least believed in a certain power of the will, while christianity affirms an external will that imposes things on you from outside basically, or at least that is the vision of God that has been given to me... Also, if you have ever experienced an unimaginable since of despair, derived from imagining the worst possible kind of suffering that you can conceive of, you would understand why I fear a possible eternal destruction. I mean a destruction which leads to the destroyed feeling that he is constantly destroyed without ever being build up again. Someone who has lost ALL hope, and is controlled and incapable to be freed from despair(because come on, if God is a free and sovereign person, then he can decide to torture me how much he likes, and this thought can drive me insane), unimaginable physical and mental tortures that never end etc. This is not foun — Beebert
How can God be a totalitarian tyrant? Totalitarian tyranny implies unlawful and immoral use of power. But God is justified to use His power however He will. We as human beings are not, however.No, if God was a totalitarian tyrant, I would not worship him. Never. You reason a bit like Calvin here — Beebert
Yes, and his rebellion would be no different than the rebellion of the very first rebel, Lucifer. The rebellion of someone who becomes so proud and thinks that he can judge God, and condemn Him as a totalitarian tyrant, just because he cannot hold God in his pocket - in other words just because he isn't God.Do you agree that there might be a possibility that a man rebels against God, or at least his conception of God since God is impossible to understand, for moral reasons? — Beebert
Yes, that's why salvation is not achieved by works but rather by faith and grace. And the fact that the Cross is a scandal to the world isn't anything new. Christians knew this from the very beginning.The presence of God’s moral standard in the world is an burden that men can neither throw off nor endure — Beebert
Why do you presume that a newborn child doesn't believe first of all? I think that quite the contrary, children are born with a desire for God - they are like a clean mirror. But because of Adam's sin, dust sticks to the surface of the mirror very easily. But they are still very receptive to God compared to most adults, since they haven't accumulated so much dust. So yes, children can be baptised, just like adults can.I have heard that orthodox say that baptism effectively washes away all sins, but I ask; how can it do that on a man who doesn't believe, for example a newborn child? Yet the Orthodox Church baptizes children, then why is that? — Beebert
I wouldn't think God would do that, why would you? You don't realise that God is the absolute centre of morality - God is the final moral standard, God is Himself the Law. There is no moral standard above and beyond God that you can use to judge God. It is impossible to judge God. That's why Kierkegaard speaks in Fear and Trembling of a religious sphere which is above the ethical - that's what the teleological suspension of the ethical is. It was RIGHT for Abraham to lift up the knife to sacrifice his own son when God requested it and by faith believe that God would return him Isaac.Does that mean that he can, just for some random impulse that we can not understand, something he does perhaps only because he enjoys it, kill and torture innocent people for example? — Beebert
The rest of your Dostoyevsky essay can be addressed by thisI would appreciate if you could answer my other two posts too; the one about orthodox infant baptism and this one: — Beebert
My expression means to show you that God is the source of morality. That is why Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky were right: if there is no God, then everything is permitted. Furthermore, because we have killed God, we have no right to hold onto our moral values either."God is Himself the Law."
The law of the Old Testament? — Beebert
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.