Kevin's Watch

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2008 2:45 pm**

sorry, double post

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:30 pm**

But the stuff I quoted above makes the Biblical notion of "humbleness" much more sinister than what you're describing.
Quote:
. . . within ourselves is nothing worthy of the Lord or pleasing to Him, nothing that is our own except our sins
That's pretty darn "humble." It borders on self-hate. There's nothing within me that's my own except for my sin? Nothing good at all? One would think such a being isn't even worth saving.

Quote:
. . . their insignificance before God. I... am but dust and ashes . . . I am a worm, and no man . . . I am poor and needy . . .

Arguing against pride and hubris, I can kind of get. But do I really have to insult myself in order to not be proud? And do I really have to suffer in order to stave off this hubris?
Quote:

The ways in which one attains humility are different. Sometimes it is through sickness, sorrow and misfortunes. Sometimes it is through being persecuted by others or oppressed by disease.
Obviously, this is going way beyond making yourself humble. We can be humble without having to inflict colon cancer upon us. To think that humility is this important, that we deserve sickness and disease in order to humble us . . . don't you think that sounds a lot like Lord Foul? Inflicting pain and suffering on people so they'll surrender themselves and their will to him? Is that really what a loving God would do?

I've gone through the Bible several times, in several translations, and I don't remember anywhere in there where it states that we must practice "self-hate".

If we take certain concepts to the extreme, we get ridiculous interpretations such as you managed to find from a ultra-conservative group.

Heck, there are groups out there that consider God, Jesus, and Satan merely intellectual concepts, yet call themselves Christian. How I don't know, but they manage.

Be that as it may, from what I gathered, the Bible does warn about extremes in human existence, such as the seven deadly sins, "Greed, Lust, Vanity, wrath, Gluttonly, sloth, and Pride"

The extreme intrepretations you posted could very well be Pride, or Vanity (my self hate and humblness is greater than yours, so God must love me more than you)

"Vanity....is definately my favorite sin"......Al Pacino, "The Devil's Advocate"

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2008 12:11 am**

Just skimmed over the last page, and thought I'd throw out that Mormons don't baptize until the age of 8 (a blessing is done shortly after a child is born), the reason being is that until that time, a person is incapable of telling good from evil. It's the converts (and possibly those who the church baptize post mortem) who have it really good, I thought, since they get to be baptized later in life.

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2008 1:04 am**

Rawedge Rim wrote: The extreme intrepretations you posted could very well be Pride, or Vanity (my self hate and humblness is greater than yours, so God must love me more than you)

i considered that this as a possibility b/c i've seen it in some people. it's like a badge of honor for some. not that i am free of my own stuff like that.

btw, i couldn't help but to think of a line from weird al's 'amish paradise'

Think you're really righteous? Think you're pure in heart?
Well, I know I'm a million times as humble as thou art

lol

Posted: **Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:35 pm**

KiGirl wrote:i apologize for the double post, but i just thought of something

why are babies baptized? before they even have the ability to commit sin? what in the world could a little innocent baby have done that would require his/her sins to be washed away with baptism?

For a much more intelligent treatment of this excellent question:

www.antiochian.org/node/16904

This cannot be answered in a soundbite in my opinion. I'll post the intro, but if you have objections, you should read the whole online brochure first.

Every night my family gathers around the dinner table. We pray, dish out the food, laugh, argue, and ask and answer questions. The scene is sometimes chaotic, sometimes serious, sometimes silly, but this scene defines our family. This table becomes the heart of our family. My girls, when they come to the table, come as full members of the family. They are not invited to the table but excluded from the food. They belong by right to the household, and therefore belong at the dinner table. This right is never questioned, their status never challenged. Do they understand the significance of belonging to the family? Do they appreciate the blessings inherent in membership? Of course not, at least not yet. Will they ever reject this family? Will they break the holy fellowship of that dinner table? Probably not, but even if I worry that they will, I cannot keep from them the family status which they have as a birthright. On the contrary, honoring that status, rejoicing and raising them in it, will do more to preserve them as valuable family members than waiting to offer this membership until I am sure they truly appreciate it.

Why start at the dinner table to talk about the practice of baptizing children in the Orthodox Church? Because the family table, and the family itself, are biblically ideal images for the church altar and the church family. We are born into an earthly family, and born again (John 3:3) into the heavenly family. We eat together at the dinner table, and we feast together at the altar. With God our Father, and the Church our Mother (Revelation 12:1), we gather as children of a holy family, each of us enjoying the full privileges of membership by a baptismal birthright. Do we fathom the many blessings we receive just by virtue of belonging to this family? No, for to do so would be to fathom the depths of the riches of God. Does God still honor us, treat us as His children, still welcome us to His table, still call us His own? Always and forever. We may reject Him, rebel against Him, flee to a far off country. But if we return, we do not return as stewards of His Household, we return as His children, we return as prodigal members of His family. If we do not return, we know that God will never stop His vigil at the gates of our hearts, waiting for the return of His own.

Nevertheless, the ancient, apostolic and biblical practice of baptizing infants and children has been challenged by some in recent times. Let us look at the background and arguments of this debate before we turn to what it means for the Orthodox Church to baptize children.

Posted: **Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:43 pm**

Rawedge Rim wrote:I'm gonna take a stab at a couple of points here, I'm not here to convert you heathen aethiests and agnostics , nor to test the faith of those within the faith.

The concept of course for "Original Sin" comes from Eve, and Adam's dissobedience to what amounted at the time to God's only real command, "16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." 18

Up until the point where Adam and Eve had not partaken of the "forbidden fruit", they were innocent, and essentially incable of committing evil, as they had no knowlege of the difference.

Once they ate of the tree, they were no longer innocent, and could grasp the concept of good and evil, and had gained the capacity to be evil, and sin.

Thier very next act, instead of owning up to what they had done, was to pitifully try to hide themselves, and thier "sin" from God. They weren't really sorry about eating of the tree, they were just afraid of being punished.

Then thirdly, when asked why they had disobeyed, instead of saying, "It was my doing" they blamed someone else. Adam goes (paraphrazing) "It wasn't my fault, Eve made me do it!", and Eve went "Wasn't my fault, the serpent made me do it". Either way, no acknowlegement that they were at fault.

This is the basis of the "Original Sin", which according to Word, we are still paying for.

Now you can ask, "Why in the hell did God even put that tree there in the first place?" and my answer would be "Damn if I know".

Depends on how literally you take your bible.

Next in the Bible, prior to the new Testament, there is not really of concept of a Heaven that people as a general rule, could aspire to. The old Testament frequently states that various people died, and "rested with thier fathers", not, "and they were taken into heaven". Only mentions I can think of, of mortals going to heaven, were Elijah and Enoch. It's not until the New Testament that the concept of mortals having a place in Heaven comes about.

As to why humbleness is so exalted within the Bible, (and for that matter, throughout much of religion period, such as shinto, bhuddism, etc), is that pride and self-rightousness takes the mind off of God, and instead concentrates it on the worldly things. One forgets God, and loses sight of him when spending all their time concentrating of riches, power, or IMOHO, pointing out every flaw in others. A humble person knows that they have no business trying to "remove the mote from his nieghbors eye" since he probably has "a beam in his own eye".

Of course the question arises, "why should I not be proud of my accomplishments?"

There is pride, and there is hubris. If you are standing on a plane, with nothing but your skin, you can accomplish nothing. If I, as an omnipotent being, cause a load of bricks and mortor to appear, and you build a house from these materials; was this your accomplishment, or did you have help, and should you not acknowlege that help. You could not have accomplished this without the help of the omnipotent being.

So what happens with people who persue riches, power, and such, is that they lose sight of God, and say to themselves, "God didn't do this, I did, what do I need God for", (at least until the excretement impacts the revolving atmosphere moving device), then it's "God, if you'll get me out of this......50%....make that 60%......"

There are some good points here.
I'm not going to argue over the concept of Original Sin; the difference is more of a fine line given the similarities to our view that we ARE born with a natural tendency towards self - in practical terms it is nearly impossible to not commit a selfish act harmful to others at some point in your life - I'll just say that under the Orthodox view the crucial difference is that we do screw things up for ourselves by our own sins, rather than being little innocents condemned by the sin of an ancestor. Death is our birthright from Adam, but our sins are our own.

(Shifting to other posters' comments...) It's probably useless to point it out, but some of you seem to want to see damnation as something externally, rather than self-imposed. A key point is that our habits, our selfishness, our impatience, if amplified not over a mere 80 years but over eternity, would literally be hell without any need for external damnation. More than anything, we do it to ourselves. I will say that you do rightly object to the idea of "Whoops! You made the wrong decisions in life, so to hell you go!" Put another way, we need to be saved from ourselves, and in dying to our selves, God can restore us to ourselves as originally intended.

One thing I got (probably from C.S. Lewis) is the idea that the tree in the garden could well have simply been something we weren't ready for. Much as we would forbid certain foods to young children because of possible dangers or an inability to digest. God did not will the disobedience, but in giving us free will, His will made disobedience possible.

Posted: **Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:01 pm**

Malik23 wrote:Alright, I’ve done a bit of research, and this time I’ve moved beyond Wikipedia. My research and quotes come straight from Orthodoxyinamerica.org, the link Rusmeister gave us pages back in the thread.

But before we get to those quotes, let’s look at some quotes from The Wounded Land.

Sunder: “Therefore in his wrath the Master turned his face from the Land. He sent the Sunbane upon us, as chastisement for treachery, so that we would remember our mortality, and become worthy again to serve his purpose.” [Remind anyone of the Flood?]

Part of [Covenant]. . . raged at the brutality which had taugh people like Sunder to think of their own lives as punishment for a crime they could not have committed. . . [Remind anyone of Original Sin?]

Protests thronged in Covenant. He knew from experience that this conception of the Land was false and cruel. [Remind anyone of Malik’s posts?]

Linden: “A Master like that isn’t worth believing in.” [See above, concerning Malik’s posts.]

Other similarities between Christianity and the Clave: The emphasis on blood sacrifice. First (in the Old Testiment) animals, then (NT) Christ. Only through bloodletting is salvation procured. Like the Clave: rituals which involve bloody sacrifice purchase life.

Okay, now let’s turn to the quotes from Orthodoxyinamerica.org. These quotes back up my criticism that Christianity—even the Orthodox kind which Rusmeister thinks is exempt—is an inauthentic religion because it denies the self, maligns our physical being, and maligns our physical world. We are doomed and damned creatures in need of salvation, born into this fundamentally flawed place as fundamentally flawed creatures, who, only through debasing ourselves and wallowing in our sinful nature, can we ever give up our will in order to receive forgiveness—not only for our own “sins” but also for Original Sin which we did not commit.

Only when it is humbled will our spirit become aware of the gulf which separates man from God and will know that God is all that within ourselves is nothing worthy of the Lord or pleasing to Him, nothing that is our own except our sins and that the fullness of spiritual life consists in renunciation of self in giving oneself entirely to God and to others.
That is a doctrine which hates man as he exists in his natural state. There is nothing within us worthy of the Lord or pleasing to Him. Yep, the central doctrine of this religion is: you’re a pile of crap.

Only by sacrificing ourselves will we find ourselves in the fullness of life lived for God and for others. And to find ourselves in God and in others, we must lose our own selves. Our spirit, renewed in God, knows that human life belongs to Him and always and in all things is dependent upon Him, and that we must be in steadfast contact with Him, begging His help and living in the hope that the gracious Lord in His mercy will not abandon us in our helplessness.
Yep, we are grovelers who must give up ourselves and live in a state of constant helplessness and begging for mercy.
The righteous men of the Old Testament were aware of their insignificance before God. As Abraham said of himself, I... am but dust and ashes (Gen. 18:27). David, both king and prophet, cried out, I am a worm, and no man (Ps. 22:6); I am poor and needy (Ps. 86:1). Moses said to the Lord, I am slow of speech and of tongue (Ex. 4:10); and the Prophet Isaiah said to himself, I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips (Is. 6:5).
Leper! Outcast! Unclean! That’s what we are to Christians.
The saints of the New Testament Church, the nearer they drew to God, the stronger they were aware of their smallness and unworthiness before God, and were filled with truly profound humility. Some of them declared as they died that they had not even begun their salvation, while others declared that there was no place for them even in Hell, while yet others declared that even the earth would not accept their sinful bodies.

According to St. John Chrysostom, humility is the foundation of all virtue, for even if one distinguishes himself by fasting, prayer, alms, chastity, of any other virtue, without humility all of these would be destroyed and would perish. Thus there is no salvation without humility. This virtue was regarded highly in the Old Testament, for as the Psalmist says, A broken and contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise (Ps. 51:17). Seeing the results which humility brings, he was moved to say, When I was brought low, He saved me (Ps. 116:6).
Not only does Lord Foul want to break Covenant, but "O God" wants you broken and contrite.

In the New Testament, the Lord Himself gave us the greatest example of humility (Matt. 11:39; John 13:14-16), for His entire life teaches us humility. The Mother of God says of herself, For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden (Luke 1:48). The Apostle Paul said of himself, I am the foremost among sinners (1 Tim. 1:15). The Publican of the Gospel saw nothing within himself except sinfulness, and simply hoped in God's mercy.

The ways in which one attains humility are different. Sometimes it is through sickness, sorrow and misfortunes. Sometimes it is through being persecuted by others or oppressed by disease. As St. John Chrysostom says, True humility comes when we turn from our sins to God.
So the “foundation of all virtue” is achieved by wonderful things like sickness, sorrow, and misfortune. And this is *good* thing, because it beats you down enough so that you become a proper groveler before the Lord (Foul).
He who has attained deep humility considers himself the unworthiest among men and attributes all his accomplishments to God.

Feeling like a piece of crap yet? No? Then you’re not low enough to be a Christian. Keep trying. Back on your face, grovelers.
Therefore, the poor in spirit, those who are humble of heart, will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

Mourning, as the expression of the spirit's repentance for its sins, is of spiritual value, and must be treasured so as not to be wasted on earthly vanities. The mourning of the spirit, however, is not always accompanied by physical tears, for deep sorrow can be expressed in sighs, constriction of the heart, profound silence, inner concentration and withdrawal. Yet, as St. Ephraim the Syrian notes, these tears are like precious pearls, for by God's gift the soul is enlightened by tears, reflecting the heavenly like a mirror.
Yep, being filled with grief over your own lowly, crappy, sinful self is a virtue, something to be treasured. Seeing the life-denying inauthenticity yet? Keep reading.
Great is the strength of pure and heartfelt tears that rise from the depths of the heart, for these tears wash away all internal and external filth and quench the flame of all irritability and anger. These tears are especially saving when they are constant and, as St. John of the Ladder teaches us, he who is truly concerned for his salvation will count each day when he has not wept for his sins as wasted, in spite of any good deeds that may have been accomplished.

A day not spent wracked by self-loathing, self-deprivation, and self-hatred is a bad day.
We are constantly sinning, both when we are active and when we give ourselves over to idle dreams, and these sins must be washed away with tears of repentance. These tears are a means of washing and purifying our soul, and a sacrifice offered up to God by our contrite and broken spirit. If our tears arise from fear of God for our sinfulness, they will intercede for us with God, as St. Ephraim tells us.
We must be a broken sacrifice in order to be “worthy” of saving. Remember, your grief is a good thing, because you are so crappy—constantly sinning—that this is the only appropriate response to your existence.
Meekness is directly linked with heartfelt repentance and mourning for our sins and he who considers himself worthy of all sorrows and troubles will be filled with the spirit of meekness and humility.
Meekness is basically agreeing that you’re a piece of crap, worthy of your own suffering.

The Psalmist especially praises meekness, placing it on a level with truth and righteousness (Ps. 45:4), and the Prophet Isaiah speaks of God's particularly merciful attitude to man who is meek: This is the man to whom I will look, he that is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at My word, says the Lord (Is. 66:2). St. Peter sees a meek and quiet spirit as one of the greatest treasures of the human heart, which in God's sight is very precious (1 Pet. 3:4). Therefore he urges the followers of Christ to be ready to answer with meekness and fear (1 Pet. 3:15) those who ask the reason for their hope. St. James asks us to receive with meekness the Word of God (James 1:21), so that it will find the most direct way to the hearts of his listeners.
God wants you to be cowering in fear, mournful of your own worthlessness, and groveling for your life.

Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls (Matt. 11:29), for it is out of this virtue that all the other virtues grow, including love itself. Through meekness and humility man overcomes his natural self and pride, and spiritually develops towards self-denial in the Name of God and out of love of Him and one's neighbor.
Yes, self-denial and spiritual slavery. “Taking up his yoke.” You’re no better than a farm animal, to be led by a yoke and toil in God’s fields.
The pure in heart are not tempted by the seductions of this world. As St. John of the Ladder says, truly blessed is he who has attained complete dispassion for all carnal things, for appearance and beauty; great is he who is dispassionate; he who has triumphed over the body, has triumphed over nature, and there is no doubt that he who has triumphed over nature stands higher than nature, and such a man differs little from the-Angels; purity of heart brings us closer to God and, as far as possible, makes us like unto Him.
And here is where we get into denying the world, and maligning our physical existence. This world (like the Land under the Sunbane) is something evil, something to deny, something to “overcome,” and even its beauty is something we should reject. Our bodies are supposed to be “triumphed over,” because we all know our bodies are bad, and nature itself is something we’re supposed to stand above, rather than be part of.

Blessed are you when men shall revile you and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for My sake.

These words are the continuation and conclusion and at the same time the crown of all the Beatitudes that have preceded. In the eighth Beatitude, oppression and persecution were linked with Christ's righteousness, and in the ninth, with Christ Himself as the bearer and expression of this righteousness. The Savior declares in no uncertain terms that men shall persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for My sake. In this lies the greatest reward for His followers, who are called to joy and happiness, when the hour of suffering is upon them.

It is important to understand that tribulations are necessary because there is no other way for us to be cleansed of our sins except that pointed out by the Savior and followed by Him. In suffering we become aware of our own weakness and helplessness, and, humbled in prayer and contrition before God, we receive divine help and joy in the Lord.
When you’re reviled and persecuted, you know you’re on the right path! After all, you deserve it. That horrible suffering you’re feeling is the tingle that lets you know it's working!

And now we come to Baptism and Original Sin.

First place among the Sacraments of the Orthodox Church is occupied by Holy Baptism, by which a man,
who has come to believe in Christ, by being immersed three times in water in the Name of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), is cleansed through Divine Grace of all sins (Original Sin and personal sins) and is reborn into a new holy, and spiritual life.
So Orthodox Christianity believes in Original Sin after all, despite Rusmeister’s obfuscations on this very issue. We inherit the guilt of a crime we didn’t commit. Again, let’s look at that criticism of the Clave: Part of [Covenant]. . . raged at the brutality which had taught people like Sunder to think of their own lives as punishment for a crime they could not have committed. .
The Savior commanded His disciples to teach the Faith and to baptize all nations (Matt. 28:19), for as descendants of Adam all are in need of rebirth. This rebirth is accomplished only through Baptism, which is why all men seeking salvation, regardless of sex, nationality, or any other condition, must be baptized. Thus the Orthodox Church holds Baptism to be as necessary for infants as for adults, since they, too, are subject to Original Sin and without Baptism cannot be absolved of this sin.
Seems like my interpretations weren't so far off, after all. If you've seen one life-denying, self-denying, body-denying, world-denying, "humans are guilty from birth," "we all deserve our suffering," "we were made to be grovelers and slaves" religion--you've seen them all.

Hi Malik!
I appreciate the time you took to look up the site I linked. I do question your motives, though. If you wish to simply make dogmatic statements, I can accept that, but since the dogma conflicts with mine, I won’t be terribly interested in reading it. If you wish to actually prove points via reason, then I think Cyberweez is quite right to express skepticism about your conclusions.

I really don’t think there’s much point in responding to you because you hold a stance no less dogmatic than mine. So I largely won’t, except to point out where you incorrectly (and seemingly willfully) misunderstand what you got from the link I provided, and this is more for the benefit of people who have taken a less dogmatic stand against Christianity. I will continue to say “seem” – it is possible that I mistake your attitude.

I’ll reiterate that for a person who wants more than a quick surface impression, the single most important thing is actually darkening the door of an Orthodox church, preferably during a Liturgy and preferably arranging a short time to talk to a priest, possibly making an appointment for after the Liturgy or for a weekday). For those who only want the quick surface impression, the links I provided are good.

My first observation is on your comparisons with the Clave. You seem again and again to completely miss the emphasis that guilt is for something earned – that by screwing a girl and walking out on her (leaving her to deal with a pregnancy or disease), or getting drunk and smashing up your friend’s car, or simply cutting others off in traffic; in a word, actions that place our own desires first at the expense of others properly deserve guilt, and that Orthodox teaching is that we ARE responsible for our own actions. The Clave is presented by Donaldson as imposing guilt externally – because the authority says so, not because it is in fact proper guilt earned through our actions. This makes it a horse of a different color. Your argument may have some validity in regard to the concept of Original Sin (meaning inherited guilt), but if there is even one faith that denies that concept then your argument is useless against that faith.

You misunderstand what you call “maligning physical being” and “the physical world”. As I said before, in Genesis chapter one, it clearly states that God created the world and that it was good. We believe in the initial goodness of things. That we say that these things are ruined or abused does not say that we do not see the initial good.

who, only through debasing ourselves and wallowing in our sinful nature, can we ever give up our will in order to receive forgiveness—not only for our own “sins” but also for Original Sin which we did not commit.

Here you completely reverse what Orthodox teaching says and seem to bend it to fit your own understanding. Orthodoxy insists that we NOT wallow in our sinful natures or debase ourselves – you seem to confusing humility (a recognition of our faults and weaknesses, the opposite of pride) and debasement (the deliberate lowering and ruination of something that is good), and you once again try to insinuate that Orthodoxy teaches that we are guilty of sins other than our own.

That is a doctrine which hates man as he exists in his natural state.

This misses what we’re saying about man’s natural state – that sin is something unnatural that we have done and do to ourselves. It attempts to point out the hugest obstacle to faith – pride; the idea that we are ‘good enough’. While it is clear that there is good in the world it is absurd to take a stand that we are good enough. The six o’clock news ought to be enough to convince you that there is also evil in the world. (Covenant needed to learn about the love in the world – as I did at one point in my life, but some need to be convinced of the latent evil in their own souls – looking at someone’s wife and fantasizing about nailing her, or worse, actually doing it, or selling someone a car with problems and hiding them for the sake of getting more cash, etc…)

What is the difference between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic understandings of original sin?
What is the difference between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic understandings of "original sin?" Do we Orthodox Christians even believe in "original sin?" (Nov. '01)

In the 6th Decree of the Synod of Jerusalem (AD 1692) the Patriarchs of the Orthodox Church affirm that "We believe the first man created by God (Adam) to have fallen in Paradise, when, disregarding the Divine Commandment, he yielded to the deceitful counsel of the serpent (Satan). And hence hereditary sin flowed to his posterity; so that none is born after the flesh who beareth not this burden, and experienceth not the fruits thereof in this present world. But by these fruits and this burden we do not understand (actual) sin, such as impiety, blasphemy, murder, sodomy, adultery, fornication, enmity, and whatsoever else is by our depraved choice committed contrarily to the Divine Will, not from nature; for many both of the Forefathers and of the Prophets, and vast numbers of others, as well as those under the shadow (of the Law), as under the truth (the Gospel), such as the divine Forerunner, and especially the Mother of God the Word, the ever-virgin Mary, experienced not these, or such like faults; but only what the Divine Justice inflicted upon man as punishment for the (original) transgression, such as sweats in labor, afflictions, bodily sicknesses, pains in childbearing, and while on our (earthly) pilgrimage to live a laborious life, and lastly, bodily death." What does all of this mean? Since Adam alone committed the "original sin" (or, more properly, the "ancestral sin"), he alone bears the guilt for that sin. However, the consequences of that first sin -- e.g., sickness, pain, death -- and most especially the allpowerful propensity to sin, is inherited by all of his descendants. Roman Catholics, on the other hand, believe that we are all born sinners, guilty of Adam's sin from our very conception in the womb.

www.antiochian.org/1311

I realize some people will use the term “Original Sin”, even in the Orthodox Church – sorry about any confusion there, but I hope this makes it plainer that the concept of guilt for inherited sin simply isn’t there. Consequences, yes. Guilt – no. Any references you see to OS are purely in terms of consequences.

You don’t seem to go to any trouble at all to learn what the nature of pride and humility are. You read a few things – instantly apply your own understanding to them and don’t ask the simple question, “Why is this important in Orthodox understanding? What are the dangers of what you guys fear in pride? Why is meekness a good thing?” You don’t ask these questions at all. You haven’t learned much about Orthodoxy by merely going to a web site and looking for things to attack.

I don't think it's fruitful to respond further until it becomes clear that you are actually seeking to understand, rather than merely attack.

I’m sure you’ve seen one treatment of Christianity and may be thoroughly familiar with its theology. But no, you haven’t seen them all.

Posted: **Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:28 pm**

KiGirl wrote:
Lord Mhoram wrote:Just because you don't accept the Christian God (neither do I) doesn't mean you can make baseless generalizations about Christianity in your effort to justify that unbelief. It's intellectually dishonest, utterly, and frankly gives other atheists and agnostics a bad name.
are you just speaking to malik here b/c there are others who are saying the same thing as malik. and we are supposed to accept rus's view of christianity as the truth, even though all the other sects of christianity hold the view of original sin.

malik and i grew up in the heart of the bible belt and still live in it. when we drive down the interstate, there are signs that say, 'hell is real.' no lie. when i went to church growing up, it was drilled into our little heads that we all are born with adam's sin. and even when debating with christians online, they extrapolate this sin to be universal, in the event that there is life beyond earth. ignoring this basic belief of christianity based on this one sect is intellectually dishonest.

Hi, KiGirl!
I sympathize with your exposure to versions of Christianity you find inimicable.
You seem to come across with particular assumptions behind your statement - that all versions of Christianity are merely sects, and that if most of them share a basic belief that this is the one that correctly reflects an attempt to group all of them into one kettle.

How if one version is actually the original version and actually reflects cosmic Truth? If various groups replaced the authority of the Church actually established by Christ and the Apostles with their own authority and went off in various directions, developing dogma that turns out to be mistaken because the foundational assumptions of the sect or division are wrong? A study of the history of the Christian Church would reveal that for the first thousand, repeat, thousand years of its existence, there was essentially only one 'denomination'. Practically all divisions arose out of the Great Schism of 1054, and what you experience is versions of Christianity that arose out of the Protestant Reformation, which was protesting against practices of the Roman Catholic Church (which, from the Orthodox standpoint, had itself gone wrong). It seems like Martin Luther did have legitimate beefs, but what if the actions taken by him and his followers were wrong? Then it would follow that every version of Protestantism - the very 'sects' of Christianity that you despise, are not based on the original version at all and not to be considered as the true Christian Church.

I'm not hoping to convince you, but you do seem to dismiss this possibility out of hand and simply put all versions of Christianity on equal footing. It ignores the history of the Christian Church, esp. the first millenium. I do not claim that faith can be rationally 'proved' - that's silly - but certainly faith and reason, even good reason, are compatible.

Once again, for hardened atheists like y'all, I'd recommend G.K. Chesterton's "The Everlasting Man" www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/everlasting_man.html to consider how such whacky views as mine might have some founding in rationality and common sense (a bizarre, proposition, I know).

Posted: **Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:51 pm**

Rusmeister, no need to question my motives. I'll clearly state that my intentions are to take somthing which you view in a positive light, and show how it is actually quite negative when you embrace this reality authentically, and accept this reality. I'm not doing this vindictively or maliciously. I honestly see it as a service to my fellow man, to free them from the chains of guilt and shame for how we actually exist. I think that religious people aren't used to seeing their beliefs in this light, and they have been fooled into believing something horrible is actually something good. You have accepted a value system which, in my opinion, is upside down, which turns vices into virtues, and sees virtues as vices.

We exist as individual selves. That is the undeniable, irreducible condition of our being, and it is upon this starting point that every other social relationship is built. That's our natural state, our starting point, the foothold in this world upon which it is possible to even contemplate relationships with others.

So, to view self-oriented values as something evil turns our entire existence on its head. While there are clearly benefits to treating other people nice, and value in helping others, it does not follow that the self is something which must "die" or be given up or something for which we must feel ashamed. The two are not mutually exclusive. I can love my family and my race without sacrificing myself.

I think pride is described by religions as something bad as a means to control you. Religion rests upon its ability to convince its members to subvert their will to a belief. The power of this belief rests entirely in its success at getting you to give up your individuality, your freewill, your free thinking, in order to conform to the group. This is the classic technique of any cult or group which operates by top-down authority. Even the military or fraternities operate with a "conditioning" period or initiation period in which the individual is torn down in order to build you back up as a cog in the machine. It's a classic indoctrinization technique which religions have been practicing for milennia, and their greatest success is that they have convinced people that this tearing down the self is something worthwhile.

So of course you're not going to see humility as bordering on self-hate. But if you follow the quotes I provided (and not merely my commentary), you can see that humility isn't defined in noble terms, but rests entirely upon the idea that humans aren't good enough, aren't something worthy of being proud of. It is a doctrine of human bashing. You look around and see people do bad things, and therefore conclude that humans are fundamentally bad. But what stops someone from looking at the good things we do, and concluding that we are good? It's clear that we're not sinning all the time. To base your opinion of humans on merely one facet of their behavior makes sin more important than not sinning. This is what I mean about turning values on their head. You focus on the evil of men, elevating that one aspect beyond all others, as if it were the single most important aspect of our being, and then define us solely in those terms. THAT is self-hate. To exclude everything good about us and choose to define our being in the worst possible terms.

In these terms, I see no distinction between the "evil" of self-love and loving others. If we're not good enough to love ourselves, to be proud of ourselves, why are our neighbors any better? If I'm not good enough to be proud of myself, then why should I be proud of my children? Shouldn't I view all humanity with the same kind of negative view that I view myself? Why must I give up myself, instead of giving up others? The idea that I'm too evil to be proud of, and yet others are more deserving of my love than I am, is a contradiction. The idea that we must have humility because we're bad, and yet others deserve love when they are equally as bad, is a contradiction. If others are no worse than me, then I should be able to love myself no less than others. There should be no need to give up myself or surrender myself, if I don't have to simultaneously give up others.

This misses what we’re saying about man’s natural state – that sin is something unnatural that we have done and do to ourselves. It attempts to point out the hugest obstacle to faith – pride; the idea that we are ‘good enough’. While it is clear that there is good in the world it is absurd to take a stand that we are good enough. The six o’clock news ought to be enough to convince you that there is also evil in the world. (Covenant needed to learn about the love in the world – as I did at one point in my life, but some need to be convinced of the latent evil in their own souls – looking at someone’s wife and fantasizing about nailing her, or worse, actually doing it, or selling someone a car with problems and hiding them for the sake of getting more cash, etc…)

How can sin be something unnatural, and yet latent within all of us? Your idea that we were once free from sin rests entirely upon a story, and no evidence whatsoever. [Edit: you have looked at the "sin" of men, and decided a priori that sin is unnatural, and then offer up as "evidence" a story which, honestly, is indistinguishable from any other mythology. However, you wouldn't have accepted this story to begin with if you weren't the kind of person who was inclined to believe that the world isn't supposed to be like this. THAT is what I mean about inauthenticity. You look at the world how it actually is, and then decide, "no, this can't be right because I don't like it and/or can't accept it." But your personal preferences don't determine what REALITY should or should not be. You substitute a story in a book--combined with your own inability to accept that the way reality in fact is--with reality itself. Inauthentic. A doctrine of denial. A doctrine of, "I don't like it, therefore I'm going to believe this story instead of believing reality itself." And that story rests upon the belief that mankind's chief characteristic is his sin. That's literally all there is about him, and nothing pleasing within him to the Lord. And our only salvation comes in giving up ourselves. Man, this is classic inauthenticity. It's as if the word were invented to describe exactly what you believe: reality exists in a way I don't like, therefore I'm going to believe a story in a book instead, and use that story to condemn all humanity for all time as Guilty--even when they are pretty good--in order to justify giving up myself to this mythological belief.

Honestly . . . I'm not saying this to make fun of you or any other Christians reading this . . . I just don't think you have anyone else telling you how bad your religion looks from the outside. You think my condemnation comes from my inability to be humble, or to admit my sins, or allow Jesus into my heart. You think I'm too proud, or too lustful, or whatever. But in reality, I'm too authentic to give up myself simply because I don't like reality.]

Posted: **Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:30 am**

While it is perfectly natural for a religious debate to sometimes become heated, I would like to offer a mild note of caution here. The thinly veiled insults and sarcasm are what lead to flaming posts, folks. I think that, conducted with a touch more respect, this is making for a great discussion. However, I would advise a tad less sarcasm and apathy considering each other's beliefs...

Quote:

I appreciate the time you took to look up the site I linked. I do question your motives, though. If you wish to simply make dogmatic statements, I can accept that, but since the dogma conflicts with mine, I won’t be terribly interested in reading it.

It is this sort of apathetic denunciation that leads to problems.

Quote:

I will continue to say “seem” – it is possible that I mistake your attitude.

Possible, though not likely. Yet your own responses have been only marginally more respectful than Malik's. Yes, you believe in God and the Bible. He doesn't. Obviously, you are both intelligent and rational people. Perhaps its time to agree to disagree?

Malik, while I do respect your views, perhaps you could have presented your argument in less inflammatory terms?

Play nice, folks.

-B

Posted: **Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:29 am**

Baradakas, I think that certain topics preclude finding ways to defend your position which aren't inflammatory. If we're going to allow discourse between people who, on the one hand, believe the other side deserves eternal torment, and people who, on the other hand, think this idea of religious torment is a mythological scare tactic, then it is impossible for these two groups to converse without insulting each other. They cannot articulate their views honestly without admitting that what they believe is negative regarding the other side. One side thinks the other is evil, while the other side thinks that their opponents are superstitious reality deniers. I don't see a way to reconcile this difference without doing a disservice to either view. These conclusions are in fact what we believe. We're representing them honestly. While I think the other side is wrong, wrong, wrong, I'd never advocate that they water down their beliefs or in any way present them dishonestly. It's an impasse. But it's an impasse which must be explored.

Posted: **Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:57 am**

Cail wrote:Here's the question, and I'm asking this sincerely....

I used to be an atheist. Now, when I say "atheist", I mean that I did not believe in any God, higher power, creator, or anything else. Because I didn't believe in God, I didn't care one whit what the Bible said, or what other people chose to believe.

It seems to my that you (and many other people who describe themselves as atheists) get awfully worked up over a God you don't believe exists. If you don't believe in Him, you can't be damned, right?

So it seems to me that you're either a busybody, which would run contrary to the vast majority of what you've posted on other issues, or that you're not really an atheist, and you are actually concerned about your fate vis-a-vis God.

So what's up? Why do you care at all what anyone of faith believes?

Posted: **Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:04 am**

Duplicate

Posted: **Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:05 am**

Thanks Esmer!

Baradakas - don't worry, I'm done. I would have already been done, but when Orthodox teaching is presented the way it was, I just had to correct it.

I don't think either of us was being insulting. (Leastwise, I'm not offended.)

Malik - dogma is something that can't be 'explored' except by someone open to accepting it. There's nothing for either of us to explore. I reject your dogma as you reject mine. We both have to continue down life's path and see if either of us is opened up to change by life as we go along.

I linked it before, but this is a fascinating discussion of both sides on PBS (US public television) via Freud and Lewis:
www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/
Just click on "The Program", and you can watch "The Great Debate".
Here is the page of video and transcripts (for those who can't handle video) www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/program/complete.html

Posted: **Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:21 am**

I don't think any less of you because you're a Christian or a Muslim. That being said, what I can't get past is the fact that there are so many religions and the two dominate ones (Christianity and Islam) are relative newcomers. I find many similarities between these two religions- the least of which is not the beloved precept of sharing the "word" and trying to convert as many people as you can. Terrorism=Crusades. Both have many homicidal fanatics. Islam literally means submission although the root word salaam means peace. Submit to Allah's will=Submit to God's will. Five pillars=Ten commandments. Heaven exists for both groups if they strictly follow the codes. Except in the Islamic heaven you get to ditch your wife for houris (young virgins- real important that a better dick has never been there) or young prepubescent boys- Muhammad wanted to sell to homosexuals too. To me, both religions appear to have been designed for control. BTW, Islam is currently growing and Christianity is currently shrinking. But I'm moving away from my original assertion. Christianity has had two opportunities to be the only religion. Once when God created Adam and Eve, and once when everyone who wasn't on the ark died. How can there possibly be older religions than Christianity if Christianity is true?

Posted: **Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:06 am**

K, if no one is offended, we can press on.

How can there possibly be older religions than Christianity if Christianity is true?

I would suggest Theodore Gaster's Oldest Stories in the World, to answer your question.

Also bear in mind that secular history shows that most monotheistic constructs are derived from Zoastranism, considered by most scholars to be the first of it's type. That is to say the first "one god" religion. It too has a fable (or historic parable) of the great flood. Science has also confirmed the flood.

So the real question becomes, from what point did we all begin to diverge?

In this, the Old Testament is the only known historical document detailing what I consider the most likely explanation, that we, the Jews and Muslims were all derived from the Twelve Tribes of Israel, and have since descended to our current places.

Most Biblical parables (such as Noah, Lot and his salty wife.) have been handed down by the Greeks, Romans, Sumerians and Babylonians. Does this change their intrinsic messages? I think not.

-B

Posted: **Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:39 pm**

Harbinger wrote:I don't think any less of you because you're a Christian or a Muslim. That being said, what I can't get past is the fact that there are so many religions and the two dominate ones (Christianity and Islam) are relative newcomers. I find many similarities between these two religions- the least of which is not the beloved precept of sharing the "word" and trying to convert as many people as you can. Terrorism=Crusades. Both have many homicidal fanatics. Islam literally means submission although the root word salaam means peace. Submit to Allah's will=Submit to God's will. Five pillars=Ten commandments. Heaven exists for both groups if they strictly follow the codes. Except in the Islamic heaven you get to ditch your wife for houris (young virgins- real important that a better dick has never been there) or young prepubescent boys- Muhammad wanted to sell to homosexuals too. To me, both religions appear to have been designed for control. BTW, Islam is currently growing and Christianity is currently shrinking. But I'm moving away from my original assertion. Christianity has had two opportunities to be the only religion. Once when God created Adam and Eve, and once when everyone who wasn't on the ark died. How can there possibly be older religions than Christianity if Christianity is true?

This is something that was of deep interest to Tolkien and Lewis (and of course Chesterton), and Tolkien's answer to lewis about the logic of all myths being reflections or foreshadowings of Christianity (sorry about the gross simplification - it's not a soundbite topic) resulted in Lewis, a recognized logician, converting to Christianity. He speaks of it at length in his autobiographical account "Surprised by Joy". And Chesterton lays out a rational explanation for how this all came to be in his book "The Everlasting Man" (the same book that caused Lewis to reject his atheism).

Some of this is recounted in the video links I provided above.

Posted: **Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:49 pm**

rus said:

Put another way, we need to be saved from ourselves, and in dying to our selves, God can restore us to ourselves as originally intended.

Rus, thats the part I have trouble with -- it seems to say that we are born defective, or will certainly corrupt ourselves and we need God's intervention to save (restore) us. If this is correct, then I think we humans really have no free will -- we either choose to serve God through Jesus Christ, or we burn in Hell. That's not a real choice.

If the Christian God loves us so much, and he made us, it just doesn't make sense to me -- Why would he make us and then demand we worship him, and if we don't, we burn in Hell in all eternity? That doesn't sound like love to me.

A typical answer to this is that God gave us the choice in the Garden of Eden, and we disobeyed him by eating of the forbidden fruit, which puts the blame squarely on us. Because of this original sin, we must go through Jesus Christ to obtain salvation. Or go to Hell. We can't win.

Anyway, that's where I am really confused about Christianity. And I grew up in a Southern Baptist church.

I am not looking for answers from you, or to debate this point, just commenting on where Christianity really hangs me up.

good conversations!!

Posted: **Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:42 pm**

rusmeister wrote:. . . when Orthodox teaching is presented the way it was, I just had to correct it.

Just for clarification . . . I understand that you interpret your own beliefs differently than I interpret them. While you might be considered the "expert" on this subject--at least in this forum--because you are talking about your own beliefs, I am trying to argue that you might be too close to the subject to see it clearly (and that goes for all religious people, not just you).

You keep speaking of dogmas. You admit that you adhere to a dogma. And you admit that you're not going to change your mind. That is precisely why I think what I have to say has value to you (and other religious people) because I can provide a perspective from the outside on a subject over which you have willingly decided to close your mind. That's what dogma means.

I disagree with your characterization that my position is dogmatic. My position is constantly changing. Just a few weeks ago, I was an agnostic, and now I'm leaning much more towards atheism. However, if God presented himself, or provided evidence of his existence, I would certainly change my mind. I'm not dogmatic on this issue at all.

This is the same kind of mistake that creationists make when they call science a "religion." If you think science is a religion, or agnosticism and/or skeptical atheism is a dogma, then you either don't understand the terms or your are purposely misusing them. Let's be clear: between you and I, you are the only one holding a dogma. Refraining from a particular belief isn't dogmatic. You might as well call people who don't believe in the flat earth dogmatic. Or people who don't believe in string theory. In these cases, the evidence either contradicts the assertion, or it simply doesn't yet exist. Acknowledging the existence disconfirming evidence, or the lack of evidence whatsoever, is the exact opposite of a dogmatic belief in something for which no evidence exists. In scientific terms, our positions are not at all on equal footing.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:53 am**

Harbinger wrote:Christianity has had two opportunities to be the only religion. Once when God created Adam and Eve, and once when everyone who wasn't on the ark died. How can there possibly be older religions than Christianity if Christianity is true?

I think this question - as well as the claim that Christianity and Islam are relative newcomers - stems from the assumption that they "popped up" of nowhere several centuries ago. But remember that they both built upon Judaism, which in itself is older (technically, the question above should have been formulated as "How can there possibly be older religions than Judaism if Judaism is true?"). And there are hints that Judaism itself may have been influenced (not spawned, though) by Zoroastrianism, which already existed 3000 years ago, and which is widely considered the first monotheistic religion in the world (although Aten worship could also be considered that).

Malik wrote:If we're going to allow discourse between people who, on the one hand, believe the other side deserves eternal torment, and people who, on the other hand, think this idea of religious torment is a mythological scare tactic, then it is impossible for these two groups to converse without insulting each other. They cannot articulate their views honestly without admitting that what they believe is negative regarding the other side. One side thinks the other is evil, while the other side thinks that their opponents are superstitious reality deniers.

You'll forgive me, I hope, if I take this piece of writing as an example to mention that, from an European viewpoint, the battle between Christians and Atheists in the US is completely baffling.
This religious conflict (which, judging from what I read in newspapers and I hear in TV, is slowly growing in scope, polarizing people) is founded on the assumption that each side is absolutely intransigent: each side believes the other is completely and utterly wrong, and that it is one's moral responsibility to prove how wrong they are (either because otherwise they'll go to Hell, or because rational people shouldn't be burdened by superstition). In both cases, interestingly enough, another assumption is that by attacking the other person's beliefs, you're doing him or her a favor - you're showing him or her what the truth about the world is, so why does he/she complain that much, and where does he/she get the nerve to counterattack?
The translation of this conflict into a social environment is the now-infamous debate of science vs. religion. And (I hope you forgive the possible stereotype) whenever I mention to an American that I'm both a scientist and a believer, I get a stare as if I were some weird new species.
But there IS common ground, and it IS possible for everyone to coexist peacefully. The feeling I have (and please, correct me if I'm wrong) is that, as always in these cases, it's a small, fundamentalist minority (both of Christians and of Atheists) which has become overwhelmingly vocal in their criticism of the other side. But they do not speak for everyone: it doesn't mean that if I'm a believer I automatically pity an atheist because he's obviously going to Hell; it doesn't mean that if I'm an atheist I automatically pity a believer because that poor guy is so deluded. At least, I hope it doesn't!
Do we really need people to "choose sides" in a conflict which cannot possibly be won by anyone, since people are notoriously stubborn in matters of personal beliefs?

Kevin's Watch

The God Fuse