Kevin's Watch

iQuestor wrote:

rusmeister wrote:

iQuestor wrote:
The thing is, it was possible for Adam and Eve to sin because God made them that way. We aren't perfect -- but its because how we were made. If we were made perfect, we'd be perfect. But, because we are human, sooner or later, somebody was going to eat from that tree.

Here you're imposing the Fallen human condition on unFallen humans. Free will means the will to always choose to reject a temptation as well as succumb to it. If you periodically walk by a fire alarm switch, is it inevitable that sooner or later you will pull it?

Yes, but God gave us free will, then punishes us with eternal burning death if we exercise it! Why would He make Man a curious animal, then throw a whole tree in front of us and tell us we have to stay away from it? Isnt that a recipe for dissapointment? That seems sadistic.

Why would he even make the Tree of Life anyway? If he is God, why not put it out of reach, or not create it entirely?

I hope no finds this offensive, but, I always have to roll my eyes at people who believe "You can't pick and choose what to believe in the bible". Every single religion and denomination of those religions picks and chooses what to believe, it's just that most don't realize, because it their religion or denomination who is doing that picking and choosing. It is impossible to believe everything in the bible, because there are so many diametrically opposed statements. In Genesis it tells you man came first in one passage, and the beasts or birds came first in another passage. Two different passages tell you different father of Christ (or Joseph?). And many other examples where in one place in the bible it tells you one thing, and then in another place it tells you the exact opposite, and this is far more than New Testament over-riding what it disagrees with Old Testament on.

Here, here! The Bible was written by humans, so it must be imperfect. Thats the explanation I get. Most of it was written well after the events themselves happened, so we rely on generations of oral histories before they put it down on paper. I think some details were lost or got switched around.

I agree with not picking and choosing, and I also agree most, if not all religions do that to support this or that religious dogma. Like you say, how can you not when many things are contradicted in the Bible.

Hi, iQ,
This illustrates the difficulty in talking with people here on western terms, because you take as a given from the outset something that from the outset eastern Christianity denies. (saying that God gave us free will, then punishes us with eternal burning death if we exercise it, for example)
Until you get that the eastern paradigm is different from what you know, we can't talk; that the nature of the Fall and its consequences is that man turned to self, away from God, and sought to find life in food, rather than God, etc. he essentially cut the umbilical cord of (eternal) life - and so we all die. Sin is seen, not as a violation of laws that demands punishment, but as an illness that draws us toward self-destructive behavior - and some of the behaviors are more difficult to perceive as destructive than others. Kind of like a person with a complex mechanism who violates (generally very frequently) all of the instructions in the owner's manual to properly run the mechanism/organism.
So your talk of "being thrown into a burning hell" (by Someone else) may perhaps be consistent with a lot of what you know about western theology, but is inapplicable to the east (Orthodoxy).

Again, your (and Sindatur's) problem with Scripture is that you, like many people in the west - most generally Protestants who accept Sola Scriptura (the idea that I can read the Bible on my own without any knowledge or understanding of the ancient cultures which produced it) are interpreting what you read based on the limitations of what you know. We all have those limitations. In the most traditional forms of Christianity (most especially Catholicism and Orthodoxy), there is a thing called "Holy Tradition" (distinct from 'traditions of men') which includes a huge body of writings and ancient practices which clarify these seeming contradictions - which sometimes are only paradoxes, rather than contradictions, and overcome the difficulty of our personal limitations. The catch is, you have to surrender the idea that you yourself are the supreme authority; the arbiter of truth. When you begin to recognize how little we, personally, know, this is not so hard. You are dealing with various translations, from which it could indeed seem that there are contradictions or inconsistencies. If, for example, you are unfamiliar with the ancient Hebrew penchant for hyperbole, then you would interpret all descriptions 100% literally and find contradiction or seeming falsehood or inaccuracies. When you learn of these cultural differences and forms of expression, as well as the meaning of words in ancient texts, which often do lose things in translation, then you begin to see resolution of these difficulties. For us, the Holy Tradition makes many things clear - the writings of the Church fathers, for instance, were written by people MUCH closer in space, time and cultural terms than we are. And you begin to realize "Oh, there's something I simply don't know yet - and there are some things that I will never know..." I have already offered the example of the doctrine of the ever-Virgin Mary - something rejected by Sola Scripturist Christians - as an example of the limitations of our knowledge.

In a sense, Sindatur, you are right, in that when genuine contradictions come up, religions DO choose what to believe. This is what those pesky ecumenical Councils of the first millenium en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_Councils were all about. But as they were committed to altering nothing that had been passed down to them, they chose to reject Arian and Nestorian teaching and interpretations, for example - it's called "heresy" (which really means teachings that are fatally wrong). But it is not right to think that people pick and choose what they believe today. In Orthodoxy and Catholicism, they look to those councils, and to the dogma (which really only means confirmed teaching on a question that has been thoroughly examined and therefore is a basic truth, and whose purpose and function is to combat heresy and prevent fatal system-wide errors from getting a foothold) of the Church, which is passed down and not messed with, and to which all members, clergy and laity, and all teachings MUST conform to. In short, no one is allowed to make anything up. Of course eastern and western histories had diverged by the time of the Great Schism, and the concept of a universal Pope in the west DID allow the introduction of other doctrines later (I would say, for one man or a few people to 'make things up', such as the Catholic doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and papal infallibility (ex cathedra), which Orthodoxy denies. But that's just an example of why I see Catholicism (and western Christianity in general) to be wrong, if still closer, to greater or lesser degrees, to the Truth.

Rus, is it proper for me to assume you are of the Russian Orthodox Jewish Faith?

First let me say, I appreciate the way you presented your post, very well done expressing your position, and not presenting a "superior attitude", it's rare for me, hearing from your side of the spectrum stating their position so.

I have some disagreements with your positions, but, I need to let them gel for a bit, so I can present them in the same respectful format you put forward.

Cail wrote:Rus,

Could you explain to me (and I'm not trying to sound sarcastic here, this is a legitimate question) how it is that you, an imperfect human, can claim that your belief system is "the one"? I see that you quote CS Lewis quite a bit. I've read him as well. He's human too, so quoting another human's opinion on the nature of God isn't really accurate either.

Let's try this.

All the people who lived and died before the coming of Christ. Were any of them saved? Just the Jews? None of them?

All of the people who lived during New Testament times outside of the scope of the Biblical story (there were people living outside of the Middle East). Were any of them saved?

How about now? There are people who call themselves Christian who believe that I'm (as a Catholic) not saved. Are they right? If not, why?

Give or take, there are two billion people on the planet who identify themselves as Christian. Assuming that all of those two billion conform to whatever your belief system is, does that mean that the other four billion people are S.O.L.?

If all of those things are the case, how do you (not CS Lewis or any other author) reconcile that with a loving God who created us in His image?

Sure, Cail - but my explanation won't help you much, if you're looking for an exclusively rational explanation. And yes, I am aware of the limitations of people I deeply admire, such as Lewis and Chesterton, and am aware of where they went wrong. So it is with a clear awareness of where they do or do not align with Orthodoxy that I quote them. I will also add that if I do quote them, then that IS what I think, and IS my opinion. What I believe is not something original that I invented. I merely discovered what millions of people before me have discovered over the centuries. There's no way that I could really produce an original thought - almost anything I could say has been said, and better, by someone else before me.

As with everybody else, you're coming at me from a western paradigm, with preconceptions, such as being "saved" (or "SOL") that are understood quite differently in Orthodoxy - so if I merely answer your questions with simple yeses or nos, you will understand them within your own framework and will in fact not understand ours. Hey, I was raised Baptist, Chick tracts door-to-door, too!

In Orthodoxy we aren't saved until it's over, and that really means all over, so it gets eschatological - in short, we don't make claims of being "saved" the way, say, Baptists do. Christ saved us by His death and Resurrection, we are being saved (in the process of) and we will be saved by God's mercy at the last Judgement. So we don't know "who is saved".
Now as far as being outside of the Church, in Orthodoxy we get to leave that to God - He is the judge, not we, and He is the One who saves.

At Easter (Pascha to us) Christ descends into Hades (a trans-time event) and destroys death and frees all of the dead. Now some of that stuff is mystical, which means we really can't understand it, but the gist of what we can understand is that anyone who believes on Him will be saved. If you've read Lewis's "The Great Divorce", then you will be able to grasp the concept of how some wouldn't want to. There's much I can't say, because not all that much has been revealed - and it is not given to us to know anything else. But that, and the apostle Paul's words on the law of the heart, for example, give us hope that all will have a true opportunity for salvation. We may not teach or believe that all will be saved (universalism) but we may hope that all will be saved, even though Christ's words give us little hope here. But they will choose, and nobody will be "SOL" - the doors of hell are locked from the inside. TGD is really, like most things Lewis wrote, quite Orthodox. You have to dig to find what does contradict Orthodoxy (I would cite his policy of "Mere Christianity" as un-Orthodox and his greatest error, one that Chesterton, for example, did not commit).

I cite Lewis because he is the easiest for moderns to understand. He uses both intellect and a gift for reducing complex things to fairly simple terms to address the errors of modern thinking.

To sum up, Orthodoxy is a more liberal position - it doesn't require us to worry about who is or is not saved - I need to be concerned about my own salvation.
Regarding the historical perspective, the Orthodox explanation makes sense of everything that happened in the West; the same cannot be said about western Christianity regarding the East. The Catholic Church seems to have relied on silence as their best weapon against Orthodoxy - just pretending that it wasn't there, until modern media forced the concession - which is why Chesterton, for example, knew next to nothing about it, although his knowledge of other religions was, on the whole, prodigious (I also believe that it was this lack of knowledge that led him to the Catholic Church - that and the Catholic circles he surrounded himself in long before he converted. But I digress.

sindatur wrote:Rus, is it proper for me to assume you are of the Russian Orthodox Jewish Faith?

First let me say, I appreciate the way you presented your post, very well done expressing your position, and not presenting a "superior attitude", it's rare for me, hearing from your side of the spectrum stating their position so.

I have some disagreements with your positions, but, I need to let them gel for a bit, so I can present them in the same respectful format you put forward.

Hi Sindatur, and thanks!
No, I am Orthodox Christian (aka Eastern Orthodox), and an American living in Russia.
It doesn't matter whether you are "Russian Orthodox", "Greek Orthodox", Antiochian Orthodox or whatever. As long as they're in communion (which can sometimes trip you up, so you need to do a little homework before attending a church), it's one big happy family, and I can go to and Commune and worship with any of them. The label is more like a flavor than anything else.

I appreciate your feelings. It was only six years ago that I began learning all this stuff. Before then I hadn't had a clue, and was just a 'lazy agnostic' that mostly didn't want to think about it.

So we don't know "who is saved".

At Easter (Pascha to us) Christ descends into Hades (a trans-time event) and destroys death and frees all of the dead. Now some of that stuff is mystical, which means we really can't understand it, but the gist of what we can understand is that anyone who believes on Him will be saved.

We may not teach or believe that all will be saved (universalism) but we may hope that all will be saved, even though Christ's words give us little hope here. But they will choose, and nobody will be "SOL" - the doors of hell are locked from the inside.

OK, now I'm completely confused.

Anyone who believes in Him (Christ) will be saved. So basically anyone who's not a Christian then, right? So anyone who lived prior to Christ's time doesn't have a shot at salvation?

SoulBiter wrote:Keep in mind that God is not holding you accountable for Adam and Eve's sin. Some see original sin as something that you inherit from birth. But I havent seen anything in the bible that would lead me to believe that a newborn child for instance will go to hell for Adam and Eve's sin. You are only accountable for your own sins, not the sins of others and not the sins of Adam and Eve.

The point that is lost in original sin discussion (many times) is that because of Adam and Eve's sin (Eating of the tree) it became 'possible' for us to sin. An infant is born sinless and until such time as he/she commits a sin, they are without sin. The problem is that sooner or later.. if that child lives long enough, they will sin. And at that point they are in need of salvation.

There are a couple of instances where the old testament states that the children will bear the sins of thier fathers:

Exodus 20:5-6 (New International Version)
5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

OTOH, there are other passages that contradict that statement.

sindatur wrote: First let me say, I appreciate the way you presented your post, very well done expressing your position, and not presenting a "superior attitude",

I agree....this time.

You explained it very well in this thread and I understand the Orthodoxy view point a little better now.
Thanks!

Rawedge Rim wrote:

SoulBiter wrote:Keep in mind that God is not holding you accountable for Adam and Eve's sin. Some see original sin as something that you inherit from birth. But I havent seen anything in the bible that would lead me to believe that a newborn child for instance will go to hell for Adam and Eve's sin. You are only accountable for your own sins, not the sins of others and not the sins of Adam and Eve.

The point that is lost in original sin discussion (many times) is that because of Adam and Eve's sin (Eating of the tree) it became 'possible' for us to sin. An infant is born sinless and until such time as he/she commits a sin, they are without sin. The problem is that sooner or later.. if that child lives long enough, they will sin. And at that point they are in need of salvation.

There are a couple of instances where the old testament states that the children will bear the sins of thier fathers:

Exodus 20:5-6 (New International Version)
5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

OTOH, there are other passages that contradict that statement.

Looking at that in context.. God had given Moses rules to give to the Israelites he had liberated from Egypt. It doesnt specifically say.... FOR ALL TIME BEFORE AND AFTER.....

Ecumenical Council chose what to include and what not to include, so, that's picking and choosing right there, in addition to having to pick and choose where teh bible contradicts itself.

As far as returning to the original language(s) the BIble was written in, I'm pretty sure that site I referenced does research that, or bases itself upon a bible that is translated from the original language(s). However, I don't see how two lines of text translated from the same language to the same language can directly contradict each other? Regardless, I fail to see how my praying for guidance and understanding when reading the bible (and "feeling" a prescence and an understanding) is any less reliable than the Preists and others who preach, my personal relationship with God should be no weaker than any other man or woman, should it? Is that not what accepting Christ as your Saviour is all about?

Sin, that actually was a huge schism between the Protestants and the Catholics. Up until Vatican II, there was little, if any, Bible reading done by Catholic lay people.

Anyone (in my opinion) can read the Scriptures and feel the presence of God. As far as I'm concerned, you can feel His presence when hearing a particular piece of music or a particularly beautiful sunrise, but hey, that's just me.

Cail wrote:Sin, that actually was a huge schism between the Protestants and the Catholics. Up until Vatican II, there was little, if any, Bible reading done by Catholic lay people.

Anyone (in my opinion) can read the Scriptures and feel the presence of God. As far as I'm concerned, you can feel His presence when hearing a particular piece of music or a particularly beautiful sunrise, but hey, that's just me.

OTOH, I can almost see their point. So much crap has come about because of what people read in the Bible without knowlege and understanding

With that in mind it seems like some Catholics lean more toward a Deist view than Christians do. I can't remember the actual quote but I think Jesus saids something like, "Look under a rock and you will find me, break a stick and I am there." Confirming, to me at least, that God's presence is everywhere...

Are you familiar with The Divine Mercy Cail? I was at a lay prayer service on Easter and it was recited (because it has to be) at exactly 3PM. Fascinating history behind it.

danlo wrote:With that in mind it seems like some Catholics lean more toward a Deist view than Christians do. I can't remember the actual quote but I think Jesus saids something like, "Look under a rock and you will find me, break a stick and I am there." Confirming, to me at least, that God's presence is everywhere...

Are you familiar with The Divine Mercy Cail? I was at a lay prayer service on Easter and it was recited (because it has to be) at exactly 3PM. Fascinating history behind it.

Last I checked, Catholics were Christian; as were Baptist, Methodist, Eastern Orthodoxy, and even Jevhovah's Witness's, and Mormons.

Sorry I should have said most Christians.

Rawedge Rim wrote:

Cail wrote:Sin, that actually was a huge schism between the Protestants and the Catholics. Up until Vatican II, there was little, if any, Bible reading done by Catholic lay people.

Anyone (in my opinion) can read the Scriptures and feel the presence of God. As far as I'm concerned, you can feel His presence when hearing a particular piece of music or a particularly beautiful sunrise, but hey, that's just me.

OTOH, I can almost see their point. So much crap has come about because of what people read in the Bible without knowlege and understanding

I'm not sure about that. Most of the folks who go around acting morally superior and doing what some refer to as "Bible Thumping" seem to be getting it from their Church's preacher, not from their own reading. Matter of fact, with most of these folks that you find on the internet promoting their views in this manner, they have only a few passages backing up the view they are espousing, and then they get lost when you press them in a debate, because they don't seem to have any personal knowledge from reading, but, are only reacting to what is being taught in their church (Of course this doesn't apply to any on this site that I can tell, as from what I can tell, none of you are what is referred to as "Bible Thumping")

danlo wrote:With that in mind it seems like some Catholics lean more toward a Deist view than Christians do. I can't remember the actual quote but I think Jesus saids something like, "Look under a rock and you will find me, break a stick and I am there." Confirming, to me at least, that God's presence is everywhere...

Are you familiar with The Divine Mercy Cail? I was at a lay prayer service on Easter and it was recited (because it has to be) at exactly 3PM. Fascinating history behind it.

Actually, I think that's a line from (I kid you not) the movie Stigmata. But I think there's a lot of truth to it.

Not familiar with the Divine Mercy. I'll Google it.

I don't see why...well a lot of things. But:
If we're all God's children, the Bible [or any other truly revelationary religious text] should read like "See Spot run."
Adam and Eve knew God without doubt/uncertainty...but now it's a matter of faith because we have free will...but, A&E chose other than God's will, and they knew God better than anyone else (human anyway).
It simply isn't a choice if the options make you say..."wtf?"

And (refering back a bit, and not sure who was joking and who not) Of course Catholics are Christians...anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron. If not for Catholics most Christians would be Muslims, Jews, or Pagans.

Cail, I think you're right about the Stigmata line...but my ancient memory tells me there is a very similar statement in the actual New Testament.

Vraith wrote:I don't see why...well a lot of things. But:
If we're all God's children, the Bible [or any other truly revelationary religious text] should read like "See Spot run."

It could very well have been written to read like 'See Spot run". The problem is the languages and dialects have changed so much in the last 2000 years.

Cail wrote:

So we don't know "who is saved".

At Easter (Pascha to us) Christ descends into Hades (a trans-time event) and destroys death and frees all of the dead. Now some of that stuff is mystical, which means we really can't understand it, but the gist of what we can understand is that anyone who believes on Him will be saved.

We may not teach or believe that all will be saved (universalism) but we may hope that all will be saved, even though Christ's words give us little hope here. But they will choose, and nobody will be "SOL" - the doors of hell are locked from the inside.

OK, now I'm completely confused.

Anyone who believes in Him (Christ) will be saved. So basically anyone who's not a Christian then, right? So anyone who lived prior to Christ's time doesn't have a shot at salvation?

It's kind of hard to respond to this, Cail, because I already tried to express that the descent into Hades is a trans-time event, meaning language that uses time adverbs like "prior" or "already" are meaningless. Trans-time means 'outside of time', and would here mean 'made accessible to all times', in the best translation to those of us in temporal reality.

Now it is by no means guaranteed that everyone will believe in Christ even if he is 'standing right in front of them'. Have you read "the Great Divorce"? (Highly recommended, and for an intelligent Catholic it should be extremely interesting as well) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Divorce

Also, if you are familiar with Lewis's "The Last Battle" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Battle (the final book in "The Chronicles of Narnia", you may remember the dwarves who refused to believe even though they were in heaven itself (the shack where the Calormenes had thrown them and the children). That would give you clues as to how people could refuse to accept something freely offered, because their own convictions and views were more important to them than Reality itself.

Does that help clear anything up?

Not at all. I am totally uninterested in what Lewis believes. I'm asking you what you believe. I've asked (I think) pretty straightforward questions, and you appear to be dodging them.