Greatest Sect of Christianity

[Kidlicious]

Scripture is deep, it isn't an Ayn Rand book. Quit treating it as if it were one.

JM

It's a coherent book that was meant to be understood. Quit reading it like it's nonsense.

[loinburger]

It's a coherent book that was meant to be understood. Quit reading it like it's nonsense.

Why is it that you understand a book that you haven't read and know almost nothing about, while other people who read far more of and about the book are "hacks"?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Is that a joke on those who hack up the Bible?

I'm surprised that no one yet has called out Kid saying that quoting the original Greek must be "a joke"

[Elok]

Imran, do you happen to have a link to Rod Dreher commenting about his journey to Orthodoxy, like you were talking about?

Not exactly (well that sort of mindset is Calvinist - "Preservation of the Saints" the P in TULIP - once saved, always saved). The idea is that people are focused on "winning numbers" and that's the final destination. They kind of forget about people once they are in and focus on either keeping them believing or getting new people. Some Arminian/Wesleyan churches go for a greater knowledge of God - but they can fall prey to the numbers game too.

Okay, I know what you mean there. We're not as vulnerable to it since our numbers, historically, have been defined by births and deaths rather than conversions and fallings-away.

I have not read Perelandra, but Jesus does say that our faith should be like that of little children. I take that to mean following and obeying God and not really concerned with the minute catagorization of good and evil - of course in our fallen world that's kind of impossible, but the ideal is the Adam & Eve Edenic like state of full bliss, being in union with God.

It's not about minute categorization so much as awareness of what evil is and why it is wrong; we're also called to be wise as serpents. I've heard it claimed (not as a matter of doctrine, just opinion) that, had we not fallen away, God would have let us eat of the fruit in time, when we were ready. That's basically what Lewis did in Perelandra.

The Emergent Church (basically, Post-modern Evangelical Christians) tend to push that our job is to bring the Kingdom of Heaven to Earth, to recreate Eden upon the fallen world. Hence, going beyond an Edenic mindset just wouldn't compute.

IIRC you go to some sort of non-denominational, or perhaps inter-denominational, church. Is this correct, or do you identify with a specific denomination or movement such as the Emergent Church? WRT creating Eden in a fallen world, that sounds rather too ambitious. How is that reconciled with the command to be 'in the world, but not of it'?

It seems it is still working out... same with some Holyness denominations. John Wesley, IIRC, postulated that one could live a sin-less life if fully dedicated to God. Most Protestants find this heretical (as they find the Catholic notion that the Virgin Mary was born without original sin to be heresy).

Very few points of doctrine are still working out in my church, and those are mostly new challenges posed by modernity. For example, we have no canonical position on contraception--most priests in America say it's fine if it can't cause an abortion and is used within marriage to space out children rather than prevent them entirely. Priests in Russia, from what little I've read, tend to say otherwise, and even the American position is changing somewhat as Evangelical converts bring Evangelical attitudes with them.

Generally speaking, we aim for theological minimalism, saying only what is necessary and clear to prevent heresy and refraining from speculation. As in our position on the Eucharist: we don't say how or in what sense bread becomes flesh or wine becomes blood, as the Catholics do. We just say that, in some sense or other, it is so, and leave it at that. The lack of clarity on the timeline of theosis may be due to a similar attitude. I'd like to ask a priest about this, but I'm in Peru and the only Orthodox priest nearby speaks little English. Maybe I'll bug a priest or theologian online.

[molly bloom]

Do you know there is a field of study where people learn how to interpret the Bible correctly.

This is a field you've obviously left unploughed.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, do you happen to have a link to Rod Dreher commenting about his journey to Orthodoxy, like you were talking about?

Unfortunately no, but I believe it was done during the period of time of the Catholic Church abuse scandels (Dreher was a Catholic prior to Orthodoxy).

It's not about minute categorization so much as awareness of what evil is and why it is wrong; we're also called to be wise as serpents. I've heard it claimed (not as a matter of doctrine, just opinion) that, had we not fallen away, God would have let us eat of the fruit in time, when we were ready. That's basically what Lewis did in Perelandra.

I think the traditional view (and one I subscribe to) of Eden was that it was permanent and unchanging, like God Himself. Of course, one can also speak of the Adam and Eve story as allegory (also a view I subscribe to) and state that it was God's blissful permanent world - where Heaven and Earth were joined. But our free will tends to seperate us from God, as Adam and Eve's free will seperated themselves from the Garden. We use our free will to do things that God does not want us to do and hence our world is in the shape it is in.

If the A&E story and the Fall is seen as allegory, then it makes little sense to say we could be more close to God than A&E.

IIRC you go to some sort of non-denominational, or perhaps inter-denominational, church. Is this correct, or do you identify with a specific denomination or movement such as the Emergent Church? WRT creating Eden in a fallen world, that sounds rather too ambitious. How is that reconciled with the command to be 'in the world, but not of it'?

I go to a Pentecostal Church and visit, once a month, a Lutheran Church. Emergent Church is basically a collection of post-modern evangelicals are thus are spread out over a many denominations and non-denominational groups.

And we are called to be ambitious . To bring Heaven to Earth because as Jesus Christ said, the Kingdom is at hand - we just have to help bring it, through the Holy Spirit residing in each of us (as we are now all the Temple rather than the building in Jerusalem - symbolized by the tearing of the curtain of the Temple when Jesus died on the cross), by acting in the way God calls us to. To be "in the world, but of it" means, to me, to not be of the things that are not of God. To be Heaven's representative on Earth and join the two spheres together in daily life.

Very few points of doctrine are still working out in my church, and those are mostly new challenges posed by modernity. For example, we have no canonical position on contraception--most priests in America say it's fine if it can't cause an abortion and is used within marriage to space out children rather than prevent them entirely. Priests in Russia, from what little I've read, tend to say otherwise, and even the American position is changing somewhat as Evangelical converts bring Evangelical attitudes with them.

Generally speaking, we aim for theological minimalism, saying only what is necessary and clear to prevent heresy and refraining from speculation. As in our position on the Eucharist: we don't say how or in what sense bread becomes flesh or wine becomes blood, as the Catholics do. We just say that, in some sense or other, it is so, and leave it at that. The lack of clarity on the timeline of theosis may be due to a similar attitude. I'd like to ask a priest about this, but I'm in Peru and the only Orthodox priest nearby speaks little English. Maybe I'll bug a priest or theologian online.

Actually sounds quite interesting - focus on the essentials, but leave specific other issues on a church (or diocese) level.

[Jon Miller]

I think it is often ignored, that Christ was preaching that the Kingdom of God is at hand.

Instead what is focused on is Christ's death and resurrection.

Yes, they are related, but we shouldn't forget what Christ was teaching.

JM

[loinburger]

I'm surprised that no one yet has called out Kid saying that quoting the original Greek must be "a joke"

Kid wouldn't understand what the problem is. I think that everybody has by this point realized that he is neither honest nor intelligent to understand anything but ad hominems

[Jon Miller]

The second website that you refered me to says that the "Holy Scriptures" are the "Word of God." They are "infalliblle" and writen by "Holy men of God." It says they are trustworthy. Is this ambiguous?m? Should I look at the third?

Have I ever said they were not trustworthy or scripture or written (mostly) by holy men of God?

I differ on your interpretation (ands ome other Christians) interpretation of what "Word of God" means, and what 'infallible' means. I think that infallible includes metaphor. Even includes historical inaccuracies.

I find ridiculous those who claim that every single parable of Christ's was based on some real event He had witnessed.

Every single thing you read, from something I write now, to something someone wrote a year ago, to a century ago, to 2000 years ago, is interpreted. Every single thing. Can you not understand that? You are interpreting, whenever you read something and assign meaning to it.

The interpretation is very clear for something like a math proof, that is what it is for. And it is pretty clear with Ayn Rand, because she doesn't think deeply. But when you think deeply, below the level that language exists on, then it requires greater interpretation. Whether it be Shakespeare, or Tolstoy, or the Bible.

JM

[Lorizael]

The interpretation is very clear for something like a math proof, that is what it is for. And it is pretty clear with Ayn Rand, because she doesn't think deeply. But when you think deeply, below the level that language exists on, then it requires greater interpretation. Whether it be Shakespeare, or Tolstoy, or the Bible.

Don't tell me you're one of those Shakespeare revisionists? The play hamlet is about a small village. If it weren't why would Shakespeare have called it hamlet? All this stuff about the Prince of Denmark is just interpretation after the fact.

[Elok]

Don't tell me you're one of those Shakespeare revisionists? The play hamlet is about a small village. If it weren't why would Shakespeare have called it hamlet? All this stuff about the Prince of Denmark is just interpretation after the fact.

Dolt. It's clearly a diminutive of "ham," hence the play is about a runt pig. That kind of word association is how our brains naturally work.

[loinburger]

I haven't actually read Hamlet or seen the play, but I can still tell that you're all Hamlet hacks

[Elok]

Well, I have, and I can tell you now that 400-year-old jokes are perfectly clear and funny now without any explanation. "Hit a costard in the shin?" Oh, Will, you card!

[loinburger]

Exactly - why would Shakespeare have written something that he didn't intend to be perfectly clear 400 years later to an uneducated layman?

[Elok]

Unfortunately no, but I believe it was done during the period of time of the Catholic Church abuse scandels (Dreher was a Catholic prior to Orthodoxy).

I know it was 2006, but it appears the original post is lost. Alas.

I think the traditional view (and one I subscribe to) of Eden was that it was permanent and unchanging, like God Himself. Of course, one can also speak of the Adam and Eve story as allegory (also a view I subscribe to) and state that it was God's blissful permanent world - where Heaven and Earth were joined. But our free will tends to seperate us from God, as Adam and Eve's free will seperated themselves from the Garden. We use our free will to do things that God does not want us to do and hence our world is in the shape it is in.

If the A&E story and the Fall is seen as allegory, then it makes little sense to say we could be more close to God than A&E.

While I haven't thought or read enough about Eden to make an intelligent (or interesting) comment, I would like to ask: if Free Will---->Sin as you've suggested here, what will stop us from falling again in the age to come? I don't think our free will is going to go away. That would make us subhuman, and if anything lead to greater estrangement from God by taking away from us one of the few things we have in common with Him. The beauty of free will, IMO, is that it A. gives us the power to give to God and B. gives us something to offer to God--our wills themselves.

I go to a Pentecostal Church and visit, once a month, a Lutheran Church. Emergent Church is basically a collection of post-modern evangelicals are thus are spread out over a many denominations and non-denominational groups.

I gathered. What do you mean by "post-modern," though? When I think of Postmodernism I think of the silly people I had to read in college who thought every long, skinny object in a story was a penis symbol, but who otherwise denied the meaningful existence of objective truth. That doesn't seem to be what you're going for here.

And we are called to be ambitious . To bring Heaven to Earth because as Jesus Christ said, the Kingdom is at hand - we just have to help bring it, through the Holy Spirit residing in each of us (as we are now all the Temple rather than the building in Jerusalem - symbolized by the tearing of the curtain of the Temple when Jesus died on the cross), by acting in the way God calls us to. To be "in the world, but of it" means, to me, to not be of the things that are not of God. To be Heaven's representative on Earth and join the two spheres together in daily life.

I take the tearing of the veil to represent an end to the estrangement between God and man. The veil was not the entrance to the temple, but to the Holiest of Holies, where a priest could only go once a year to offer propitiation. Christ, as the new High Priest, achieved the definitive offering which made the old sacrifice obsolete. In other words, he did not end temples, he simply opened them.

When you talk about creating Eden, it sounds to me like you're suggesting an attempt to reform human society. Is that what you mean? Because, while I consider that a worthy goal, and well-intentioned, it's beyond the scope of Xianity IMO and risks contaminating the Church with any number of social ills.

Actually sounds quite interesting - focus on the essentials, but leave specific other issues on a church (or diocese) level.

Yes and no. What you're talking about does exist in the form of oikonomia ("house law" or as I think of it "house rules," the same Greek roots as the word "economy," we just don't anglicize it because we love Greek, also possibly to differentiate). Oikonomia is the custom that gives parish priests general license to bend the rules where necessary to fit the circumstances on the ground. For example, a priest might loosen the fasting requirements for a parishioner with awkward dietary requirements. Also, local churches do have different customs which are broadly tolerated; in the U.S., the advent fast can be ignored altogether on Thanksgiving, because the church wishes to encourage a public holiday centered on God. So we eat all the turkey we want. The Russian, Greek and Antiochian churches have distinct liturgical customs, and nobody really minds. And so on.

However, a lot of the looseness is due to the fact that the Orthodox Church is currently fragmented and disorganized, or simply from the fact that she changes very, very, very slowly. The last pan-Orthodox council that was officially binding for everyone happened in...oh, when was it, 781? Anyway, the seventh ecumenical council. What with Byzantium being overrun by Turks, then Russia being overrun by Communists, things got a little messy, and for the past thousand years or so we've been running things by informal understandings, local councils, and sundry impromptu arrangements. There's a lot of mess left to clean up now, and certainly a clear, canonical statement on contraception would be welcome. The #1 priority, in America, is just to unify the church. There are something like thirteen distinct church hierarchies here, planted by various immigrants, and it's plainly uncanonical. But that's probably of little interest to you.