for theo: questions about Orthodoxy

Discuss either theological doctrines, ideas about God, or Biblical criticism. I don't want any debates about creation vs evolution.

Moderator:Metacrock

Forum rules
(1) be interesting (2) be nice.
User avatar
runamokmonk
Posts:339
Joined:Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:34 pm
Re: for theo: questions about Orthodoxy

Post by runamokmonk » Sat Mar 15, 2008 3:53 pm

Maybe people love God by loving others. Maybe that's what's being said?

Theognosis
Posts:94
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:30 pm

Re: for theo: questions about Orthodoxy

Post by Theognosis » Sun Mar 16, 2008 5:20 am

runamokmonk wrote:But the Insitituion of the Churches in the east have a tendency to align themselves with the state and this is the flip side of papal-Caesarism, Caesaropapism. And I think there was a reaction against that.

I don't think it's comaparable to that. The Byzantine model is our ideal set-up, that is, we don't let the emperor (or government) head and control Orthodoxy. Instead, we believe that the emperor (or government) should protect Orthodoxy.

The sad fact is that certain Protestant and Catholic "historians" have created the myth that the Roman emperors controlled the Orthodox Church just because the emperors were the ones who appointed bishops and asked for councils. It's like saying that Pres. Bush controls the Supreme Court because he's the one appointing judges. That's just stupid, to be frank.
runamokmonk wrote:I know that the Orthodox have a different take on that.
Yes, that's just my personal interpretation.
runamokmonk wrote:If you read Matt. 25: 31-46 you will see that Jesus seems to be saying that those who are considered lowly, hungry, outcasts and strangers are who He indentifies Himself with. Or at least, He is saying He wants us to see Him in these people in particular. Possibly because most people don't see God in the least of these and so ignore them and make them feel like unworthy outsiders.
And by implication, the orthodox Church doesn't help the poor and oppressed?

That's not true. Just look at the situation in Israel and how some priests support the poor Palestinians regardless of religion.

http://www.cerkiew.pl/en/news.php?id=2

Ha, one can't be more politically incorrect than that!

8-)

Theognosis
Posts:94
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:30 pm

Re: for theo: questions about Orthodoxy

Post by Theognosis » Sun Mar 16, 2008 5:42 am

The question Jesus is answering at this point is not "what must I do to have eternal life?" but "who is my neighbor?"
I totally agree.
Jesus told a story to make it clear that your "neighbor" is everyone, regardless of race, religion or nationality.
I totally disagree. Definitely NOT everyone. Remember that Jesus mentioned many characters in the parable. You had the thieves, a certain priest, a Levite and a Samaritan. Yet, it was only the Samaritan who was the "neighbor" (verse 37). The others were not.

I'm not saying that we should be selective in loving people. The key thing in the parable is the "neighbor" who you should love as yourself (verse 29 was a follow-up question to verse 27). The others, you can also love, but not in the same degree that you love fellow Christians. For instance, I love my job, but I don't love it as much as I love my family. Similarly, I love the terrorists and pray that they rediscover their Orthodox heritage; yet I will not allow them to visit my country because that would compromise the safety of Christians.

User avatar
runamokmonk
Posts:339
Joined:Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:34 pm

Re: for theo: questions about Orthodoxy

Post by runamokmonk » Sun Mar 16, 2008 10:42 am

The Byzantine model is our ideal set-up, that is, we don't let the emperor (or government) head and control Orthodoxy. Instead, we believe that the emperor (or government) should protect Orthodoxy.

But those who aren't of the Orthodox Church or, those who disagree with it, will have a much different view of this arrangement than those who are members of the Orthodox Church and in aggreement with it. Some may very well eventually react against this arrangement again...



I'm not saying that we should be selective in loving people. The key thing in the parable is the "neighbor" who you should love as yourself (verse 29 was a follow-up question to verse 27). The others, you can also love, but not in the same degree that you love fellow Christians. For instance, I love my job, but I don't love it as much as I love my family....

I disagree with this. For instance, if some one says they're highest ideal is liberty than the litmus test for if their ideal is truly liberty would be if they believe their enemies should be allowed the same freedom as well. So with love, it is your enemies that we must put on ourselves to truly love as we love ourselves, if we believe in Love. Not to mention people of other faiths.
Matthew 5:46-48
46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

I take being perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect to mean being compassionate and loving as He is.

Theognosis
Posts:94
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:30 pm

Re: for theo: questions about Orthodoxy

Post by Theognosis » Sun Mar 16, 2008 10:55 am

I totally disagree with this. For instance, if one says they're highest ideal is liberty than the litmus test for if their ideal is truly liberty would be if they believe their enemies should be allowed the same freedom as well. So with love, it is your enemies that we must put on ourselves to truly love as we love ourselves, if we believe in Love.
Matthew 5:46-48
46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
I take being perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect to mean being compassionate and loving as He is.
My belief is totally compatible with Matthew 5:46-48. Again, I love and GREET everybody, but I don't love everybody as I love myself.

Tell you what, before converting to Orthodoxy, I was a Universalist in the mold of Origen. Now, I hope for the salvation of all but only in the POTENTIAL sense. I even pray for the salvation of the Devil and his cohorts.

Tell me if that's not love. Tell me if that's not compassion.
Last edited by Theognosis on Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

Theognosis
Posts:94
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:30 pm

Re: for theo: questions about Orthodoxy

Post by Theognosis » Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:08 am

For instance, if some one says they're highest ideal is liberty than the litmus test for if their ideal is truly liberty would be if they believe their enemies should be allowed the same freedom as well.
Liberty? I'd rather not mix the ideals of Jesus with that of Robespierre.

;)

User avatar
runamokmonk
Posts:339
Joined:Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:34 pm

Re: for theo: questions about Orthodoxy

Post by runamokmonk » Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:17 am

Liberty? I'd rather not mix the ideals of Jesus with that of Robespierre.

I think liberty is entirely compatible with Jesus ideals. Love without liberty it tyranny and slavery, liberty without love is isolation and hell.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: for theo: questions about Orthodoxy

Post by Metacrock » Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:26 am

runamokmonk wrote:
Liberty? I'd rather not mix the ideals of Jesus with that of Robespierre.

I think liberty is entirely compatible with Jesus ideals. Love without liberty it tyranny and slavery, liberty without love is isolation and hell.

I agree there's nothing un Christian about freedom. See Galations, "liberty" is just a conservative word for freedom.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

Theognosis
Posts:94
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:30 pm

Re: for theo: questions about Orthodoxy

Post by Theognosis » Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:55 am

I reject "liberty" as we know it today. It's nothing but slavery to sin. I prefer Pope Leo's version. :D

Pope Leo XIII on True Liberty
http://www.distributist.blogspot.com/20 ... berty.html

Pope Leo XIII warns that there are certain so-called liberties which modern society takes for granted that every man possesses as a right. These are the liberties "which the followers of Liberalism so eagerly advocate and proclaim." The essence of Liberalism is that the individual human being has the right to decide for himself the norms by which he will regulate his life. He has the right to be his own arbiter as to what is right and what is wrong; he is under no obligation to subject himself to any external authority. In the Liberal sense, liberty of conscience is the right of an individual to think and believe whatever he wants, even in religion and morality; to express his views publicly and persuade others to adopt them, using word of mouth, the public press or any other means. He has the right to choose any religion or to have no religion, and this is a natural right. The only limitation to be placed upon him is that he should refrain from causing a breach of public order. Even the most extreme Liberal would hardly accept that someone who believed that men with blue eyes ought to be executed should be allowed to put this belief into practice by murdering them. Papal teaching distinguishes between public order and the common or public good. An obscene or blasphemous play might not provoke a riot, and hence would not disturb public order—but it could hardly be considered that permitting it would promote the public good.

Pope Leo XIII teaches that "many cling so obstinately to their own opinion in this matter as to imagine these modern liberties, cankered as they are, to be the greatest glory of our age, and the very basis of civil life, without which no perfect government can be conceived." Sadly, it must be conceded that since Pope Leo wrote these words in 1888, the errors he condemned have become so generally accepted within the Liberal-dominated ethos of contemporary western society that they are considered acceptable, or even admirable, by most Catholics. It would be hard to find a bishop in the English-speaking world today would would give wholehearted endorsement to the teaching of Libertas Humana.

...

Freedom is exercised legitimately only when man conforms his will to that of God. He has no natural right to prefer his own counsel to that of his Creator, even though physically and psychologically he is able to do so. A crucial distinction must be made here in discussing the nature of free will. This is the distinction between being physically and psychologically able (free) to choose evil, and having a natural right to choose evil. In the language of Liberalism, to say that a man is free to do something means that he has a right to do it, subject to the requirments of public order. "Nothing more foolish can be uttered or conceived," teaches Pope Leo, "than the notion that because man is free by nature, he is therefore exempt from law."

...

A man who chooses what is objectively evil is not making himself free but the slave of sin (John 8:34). The ultimate consequence of a culpable choice of evil can be eternal damnation. Pope Leo warns:

The manner in which such dignity is exercised is of the greatest moment, inasmuch as on the use that is made of liberty the highest good and greatest evil alike depend. Man, indeed, is free to obey his reason, to seek moral good and to strive unswervingly after his last end. Yet he is free also to turn aside to all other things; and in pursuing the empty semblance of good, to disturb rightful order and fall headlong into the destruction which he has voluntarily chosen.

...

True Freedom is Obedience to God's Law

When a man exercises his liberty in accordance with the law of God he renders his Creator homage which is due to Him in strict justice and also follows the only path by which he can be saved. He does not abdicate his dignity, he asserts it. When he chooses evil he abuses and profanes his most sacred possession. Psalm 118, the Beati immaculati, provides an inspired commentary on the correct exercise of human freedom:

Set before me for a law the way of Thy justifications, O Lord:And I will always seek after it. Give me understanding, and I willsearch Thy law: And I will keep it with my wholeheart.


Emphasis is mine.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: for theo: questions about Orthodoxy

Post by Metacrock » Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:39 pm

Theognosis wrote:I reject "liberty" as we know it today. It's nothing but slavery to sin. I prefer Pope Leo's version. :D

Pope Leo XIII on True Liberty
http://www.distributist.blogspot.com/20 ... berty.html

Pope Leo XIII warns that there are certain so-called liberties which modern society takes for granted that every man possesses as a right. These are the liberties "which the followers of Liberalism so eagerly advocate and proclaim." The essence of Liberalism is that the individual human being has the right to decide for himself the norms by which he will regulate his life. He has the right to be his own arbiter as to what is right and what is wrong; he is under no obligation to subject himself to any external authority. In the Liberal sense, liberty of conscience is the right of an individual to think and believe whatever he wants, even in religion and morality; to express his views publicly and persuade others to adopt them, using word of mouth, the public press or any other means. He has the right to choose any religion or to have no religion, and this is a natural right. The only limitation to be placed upon him is that he should refrain from causing a breach of public order. Even the most extreme Liberal would hardly accept that someone who believed that men with blue eyes ought to be executed should be allowed to put this belief into practice by murdering them. Papal teaching distinguishes between public order and the common or public good. An obscene or blasphemous play might not provoke a riot, and hence would not disturb public order—but it could hardly be considered that permitting it would promote the public good.

Pope Leo XIII teaches that "many cling so obstinately to their own opinion in this matter as to imagine these modern liberties, cankered as they are, to be the greatest glory of our age, and the very basis of civil life, without which no perfect government can be conceived." Sadly, it must be conceded that since Pope Leo wrote these words in 1888, the errors he condemned have become so generally accepted within the Liberal-dominated ethos of contemporary western society that they are considered acceptable, or even admirable, by most Catholics. It would be hard to find a bishop in the English-speaking world today would would give wholehearted endorsement to the teaching of Libertas Humana.

...

Freedom is exercised legitimately only when man conforms his will to that of God. He has no natural right to prefer his own counsel to that of his Creator, even though physically and psychologically he is able to do so. A crucial distinction must be made here in discussing the nature of free will. This is the distinction between being physically and psychologically able (free) to choose evil, and having a natural right to choose evil. In the language of Liberalism, to say that a man is free to do something means that he has a right to do it, subject to the requirments of public order. "Nothing more foolish can be uttered or conceived," teaches Pope Leo, "than the notion that because man is free by nature, he is therefore exempt from law."



I don't get what you think you are saying? do you think grace means liscence to sin?

...

A man who chooses what is objectively evil is not making himself free but the slave of sin (John 8:34). The ultimate consequence of a culpable choice of evil can be eternal damnation. Pope Leo warns:

The manner in which such dignity is exercised is of the greatest moment, inasmuch as on the use that is made of liberty the highest good and greatest evil alike depend. Man, indeed, is free to obey his reason, to seek moral good and to strive unswervingly after his last end. Yet he is free also to turn aside to all other things; and in pursuing the empty semblance of good, to disturb rightful order and fall headlong into the destruction which he has voluntarily chosen.



why would you equate grace with choosing evil? can't you see the distinction between the moral law and the mosaic law?

...

True Freedom is Obedience to God's Law

When a man exercises his liberty in accordance with the law of God he renders his Creator homage which is due to Him in strict justice and also follows the only path by which he can be saved. He does not abdicate his dignity, he asserts it. When he chooses evil he abuses and profanes his most sacred possession. Psalm 118, the Beati immaculati, provides an inspired commentary on the correct exercise of human freedom:

Set before me for a law the way of Thy justifications, O Lord:And I will always seek after it. Give me understanding, and I willsearch Thy law: And I will keep it with my wholeheart.


Emphasis is mine.

sorry these opinions do not outweigh the NT. and they don't really applay as far as I can tell. becasue no one is arguing for anitnomialism.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

Post Reply