God/Jesus sinned. Genocide is a sin of high order.

[Smoke]

Fair enough. What's the Orthodox view?

Asking that question is a good way to start an argument among Orthodox Christians. Some come very close to believing in substitutionary atonment; others come very close to considering the crucifixion of little real significance.

In general, though, Eastern Christianity tends to ask different questions than Western Christianity, so it's not so much that the answers are different as that the whole conversation is different. When Western ideas come in, Orthodox often differ about how or whether they fit into Orthodoxy. I've heard Orthodox priests talk about Christ redeeming us from the devil, but it never seems to be a central point in Orthodox spirituality -- or psychology, if you prefer.

In Orthodoxy, Christ is the bridge between man and God; humanity is sanctified by the humanity of God, and God's taking on human nature makes it possible for humans to take on the divine nature.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Sounds exactly like what Hitler was doing. Death to all non Arians.

I take it you do not believe this.


Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his work is perfect:

Did God mess up?

Regards
DL

You're very confused.

 

[Eddy Daze]

Okay... my point (which I did go at in a somewhat sneaky way ) is this:

- if people in Heaven are incapable of sin, then they don't have free will, which negates the idea that God is overly concerned with granting it to humans.

- if people in Heaven can sin but choose not to, then it indicates that God is capable of creating a situation without sin where free will and human autonomy are maintained. To me, this seems to indicate that it would have been God's choice to create the sinful world from which arose the necessity for Christ's sacrifice.

you could consider that there are heavenly planets like stop of points of learning to higher realms, where there is no sin as the soul as fully learned .

We could also say that people who break the law are put in prison, and compare those prison houses to the material bodies of the entities here, eg a trees soul would be like a long spell in solitary, so this material energy is created by God in order for us to learn the lesson that our natural position is to be with, and serve God.Seving anything else leads to misery eg money and tastebuds

 

[Greatest I am]

You're very confused.

Thanks for the -answer.

Regards
DL

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Asking that question is a good way to start an argument among Orthodox Christians. Some come very close to believing in substitutionary atonment; others come very close to considering the crucifixion of little real significance.

Thanks.

How do those who view the crucifixion to be of less significance justify their position? I know that Paul puts quite a bit of emphasis on believers "sharing in the death of Christ" and the like; do they place less significance on these passages (or maybe the whole Bible?) as well?

In Orthodoxy, Christ is the bridge between man and God; humanity is sanctified by the humanity of God, and God's taking on human nature makes it possible for humans to take on the divine nature.

Let me re-phrase; tell me if you agree: it's Christ's life, not His death, that is the key to salvation... though his death can be seen as the logical consequence of His life, and therefore the act of being born and living can be seen as sacrificial.

Is that a fair way to put it?

 

[idea]

1st, the death penalty seems harsh for most sins.

I think the point of this life is to grow, learn, become better people... It there is no chance of doing that, then there is no reason to continue hanging around... best go to a new environment where growth is still possible...

2nd He apparently destroyed the innevitable innocent among them too, or is these just collateral damage?

And what kind of a life would the innocents have among the ... not-so-innocent? This life is not the only place to learn...

3rd. When humans inevitably create clones, would you regard it as ok to then take their lives?

No, clone is talking about the physical body of a person, not their thoughts, their mind, their spirit... Soul = body + spirit... we are more than the atoms we are made up of.

 

[idea]

substitutionary atonement is necessary because human nature requires it, but that doesn't make any sense to me. I think the reaction of just about everybody who doesn't have some stake in defending the doctrine is to find it morally repugnant.

The atonement is a hard one, to be sure. I mean genocide is one thing, but killing your own son? Seems pretty evil. And how does it even help? That's not an eye for an eye, I'm sure everyone feels loved by it - that another person loves them enough to die for them, but feeling loved and feeling cleaned by it are two different things right? How exactly does it clean anyone?

"I love you enough to die for you" saying it and doing it are two different things. I mean it would not be real if it did not actually happen... The "greatest love" would not exist if it did not happen... (
13 Greater alove hath no man than this, that a man lay down his blife for his cfriends.(New Testament | John15:13) ) the opposites define one another thing again, love does not exist without sacrifice...

How does it solve anything? I guess Jesus puts himself inbetween you and everyone else with this, I mean if you are angry at someone, if you refuse to forgive them - refusing to forgive them is like telling Jesus his death did not mean anything... so you forgive them for the sake of Jesus, that his death for them was not in vain... I guess it would take a perfect person to be able to be a mediator for everyone like that... I never really thought about that...

1 Tim. 2:5 one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus
(Topical Guide | JJesus Christ, Mediator:Entry)

I guess Jesus is not just a mediator between us and God, perhaps he can be a mediator between us and everyone else too...

I think you have to experience pain to really know/appreciate joy... Perhaps Jesus is showing us that it is OK to have pain? you can have pain, and still be perfect? Perfect is not happy happy joy joy - perfect is something else, complete, whole, experiencing all of it rather than just some of it...

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
teleios
1) brought to its end, finished
2) wanting nothing necessary to completeness
3) perfect
4) that which is perfect
a) consummate human integrity and virtue
b) of men
1) full grown, adult, of full age, mature

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 13:10 - 12)

 

[MoonWater]

I think you have to experience pain to really know/appreciate joy... Perhaps Jesus is showing us that it is OK to have pain? you can have pain, and still be perfect? Perfect is not happy happy joy joy - perfect is something else, complete, whole, experiencing all of it rather than just some of it...

I just wanted to say, idea, that I really like this definition of perfect you put forward. Most people think perfect is eternal bliss and happiness where nothing ever goes "wrong". But Going by this perfection would be more about experiencing everything and knowing and understanding all sides of everything, indeed even embracing both the light and the dark within us rather than rejecting one or the other. Following that it could be said that God is even more perfect for using a flood on humanity(assuming for the moment he did) as it would show that he is truly whole and complete by embracing all aspects of, well, everything in existence(for lack of a better way to put it). (keep in mind "perfect" in this case does not mean "good" but rather "whole")

In this instance "perfect" seems more synonymous with my idea of "harmony", where it's about bringing all the pieces together into one cohesive whole and not necessarily picking and choosing which pieces to take and which to discard. If God follows this definition of "perfection" then it would only make sense that he be both loving and vengeful, it would only make sense that he would punish humanity for destroying and disgracing itself and the rest of the earth as it has, yet at the same time saving humanity from his own wrath by leaving a few alive so the species may continue. Showing that God encompasses both aspects then isn't showing him to be evil nor is it a contradiction, in this case it merely shows him as being whole, complete, rather than simply one sided or one dimensional.

I'm not really sure if that's what you meant by your definition, that's just what I myself gleamed from it. Even if this is completely different from what you meant I would like to say thank you. This definition you gave has helped me look at the God of the bible with new eyes and a new perspective/understanding... now he doesn't seem quite so "nasty"(again for lack of a better term).

Frubals for you

 

[ayani]

oy, guys...

i'm hearing a lot of anger, incredulity, and demanding.

here is what is true- God can and does do away with sinful peoples from time to time. that is His work. we are his creation. the work of a Christian is not to "join God" in doing His work of correcting and judging, but to follow Christ's example of forgiveness, patience, love, and also living a life that seeks to avoid sin.

ok, now that doesn't mean that God and His Son are at odds. Jesus takes firm stances on sin, and does condemn those who sin. He does promise God's judgement on those who hatefully reject Him, and on those who delight more in appearing Godly than in using their God-given lives to serve one another, and draw authentically closer to Him.

Jesus and His Father take the same stance on sin. Jesus, fully man and fully God, teaches us what our response to sin is to be- through His words and His demonstrated actions. by what he does, and does not do. in the face of Satanic hatred, He is meek, forgiving, wise, and patiently trusts in His Father to glorify the suffering brought upon Him.

Jesus *is* sufficient. yet one can not "get Him" by prowling around the periphery of His Person, growling objections, or politely admiring Him in a general way. one must taste and see that the Lord is Good. one must empty one's self, prayerfully ask Him in, and receive His grace. you can't fill a full vessel- you can only fill an empty one. that does not mean that saving faith in Him requires that one be uncritical, unintelligent, or unthinking. what it does mean is that one must make one's self as a small child to receive the kingdom of heaven- and that wisdom is proven true by her children.

 

[MoonWater]

I just wanted to say, idea, that I really like this definition of perfect you put forward. Most people think perfect is eternal bliss and happiness where nothing ever goes "wrong". But Going by this perfection would be more about experiencing everything and knowing and understanding all sides of everything, indeed even embracing both the light and the dark within us rather than rejecting one or the other. Following that it could be said that God is even more perfect for using a flood on humanity(assuming for the moment he did) as it would show that he is truly whole and complete by embracing all aspects of, well, everything in existence(for lack of a better way to put it). (keep in mind "perfect" in this case does not mean "good" but rather "whole")

In this instance "perfect" seems more synonymous with my idea of "harmony", where it's about bringing all the pieces together into one cohesive whole and not necessarily picking and choosing which pieces to take and which to discard. If God follows this definition of "perfection" then it would only make sense that he be both loving and vengeful, it would only make sense that he would punish humanity for destroying and disgracing itself and the rest of the earth as it has, yet at the same time saving humanity from his own wrath by leaving a few alive so the species may continue. Showing that God encompasses both aspects then isn't showing him to be evil nor is it a contradiction, in this case it merely shows him as being whole, complete, rather than simply one sided or one dimensional.

I'm not really sure if that's what you meant by your definition, that's just what I myself gleamed from it. Even if this is completely different from what you meant I would like to say thank you. This definition you gave has helped me look at the God of the bible with new eyes and a new perspective/understanding... now he doesn't seem quite so "nasty"(again for lack of a better term).

Frubals for you

I just got another thought to add to this. This could also explain the whole point of the idea of God Becoming man in the form of Jesus. If perfection is really about being "whole" and accepting and experiencing all "aspects" of "everything" then Having God become man would further his perfection by allowing him to fully experience what we humans experience and thus incorporate that into his being, making him even more whole. In this case by living the life that he did he was able to teach people more directly and learn about the human experience personally, both the "good" in loving others and healing and helping them, and the "bad", in being persecuted and eventually executed. As such he experienced, from a human perspective, the full gammut of human emotion and experience, in order to further his perfection and also help us to draw closer to that same perfection. It would also explain creation in the first place as creation would only add to the whole, add to the experience and the possible experiences and thus add to and further not only HIS "perfection" but "perfection" in general.


Wow, this has really been eye opening and looking at it from this perspective, I think I understand. This is really great, thanks again, idea.:bow:

 

[Greatest I am]

I just got another thought to add to this. This could also explain the whole point of the idea of God Becoming man in the form of Jesus. If perfection is really about being "whole" and accepting and experiencing all "aspects" of "everything" then Having God become man would further his perfection by allowing him to fully experience what we humans experience and thus incorporate that into his being, making him even more whole. In this case by living the life that he did he was able to teach people more directly and learn about the human experience personally, both the "good" in loving others and healing and helping them, and the "bad", in being persecuted and eventually executed. As such he experienced, from a human perspective, the full gammut of human emotion and experience, in order to further his perfection and also help us to draw closer to that same perfection. It would also explain creation in the first place as creation would only add to the whole, add to the experience and the possible experiences and thus add to and further not only HIS "perfection" but "perfection" in general.


Wow, this has really been eye opening and looking at it from this perspective, I think I understand. This is really great, thanks again, idea.:bow:

Do you mean that God condemned A & E without even knowing them or what was normal for mankind?

That is like us condemning fish for not swimming the way we think they should. Rather stupid of God no?

Regards
DL

 

[Eddy Daze]

I think, in the main there are two types of knowledge, accepting from an higher source by surrender or learning the hard way by trial and error, this would take many lifetimes though

 

[Greatest I am]

I think, in the main there are two types of knowledge, accepting from an higher source by surrender or learning the hard way by trial and error, this would take many lifetimes though

Reincarnation is to you what hell is to Christians.

Both un provable and both fallacies.

We have no way to know how a soul learns and no way to know what impact death has on learning.

My little talk with the godhead shows that knowledge is transferred very quickly and trip after trip is not required.

Regards
DL

 

[Elessar]

Reincarnation is to you what hell is to Christians.

Both un provable and both fallacies.

We have no way to know how a soul learns and no way to know what impact death has on learning.

My little talk with the godhead shows that knowledge is transferred very quickly and trip after trip is not required.

Regards
DL

So, you are a proselytizer trying to make other people believe what you do?

 

[Eddy Daze]

http://victorzammit.com/index.html

 

[Greatest I am]

So, you are a proselytizer trying to make other people believe what you do?

As all Religionists and believers should do. We all owe each other the truth as we know it.

How else do we judge our ideas up to and including God.

If I could somehow be the world's best proselytizer then Secularism would not be winning in it's battle against us Religionists. This would then be a better world.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

http://victorzammit.com/index.html

Living dead are the only witnesses.
How can dead live?

Regards
DL

 

[challupa]

As all Religionists and believers should do. We all owe each other the truth as we know it.

How else do we judge our ideas up to and including God.

If I could somehow be the world's best proselytizer then Secularism would not be winning in it's battle against us Religionists. This would then be a better world.

Regards
DL

No. I think not.

 

[MoonWater]

Do you mean that God condemned A & E without even knowing them or what was normal for mankind?

That is like us condemning fish for not swimming the way we think they should. Rather stupid of God no?

Regards
DL

A good question but I think the way it would work out is that since god had just created adam and eve he would know them very intimately but as time went on humanity changed from what he had originally intended and so he no longer knew man as well as in the beginning, so he had to get to know them all over again.

 

[MoonWater]

As all Religionists and believers should do.

Really, why?

We all owe each other the truth as we know it.

But it's only as WE know it, when it comes to religion what's true for me isn't true for you, why should either of us force the other to change what they perceive as true?

How else do we judge our ideas up to and including God.

Through our own logic and reason and personal experience. I don't know about you but I don't need to drag others over to my side of thinking just to prove to myself that my thinking works for me.

If I could somehow be the world's best proselytizer then Secularism would not be winning in it's battle against us Religionists. This would then be a better world.

Regards
DL

Secularism is not against religion it merely seeks to keep religion separate from politics and government, places religion never should have entered to begin with. How would having a theocracy make the world a better place?