Random destinies

[rusmeister]

Hi, Ali!

You missed my point. I wasn't talking about picking and choosing *now*. I was talking about your decision to follow Orthodoxy in the first place. Of all the choices out there -- to be Catholic, Protestant, Baha'i, Muslim, Neopagan, an atheist, and on and on -- the one that most resonated with you is Orthodoxy. So you picked that one. That choice requires you to follow certain rules, so you do. I get that part. What I'm saying is that your choice came at an earlier point.

I would argue that you missed MY point. Of course, I chose Orthodoxy. However, your use of "pick and choose" implies something different than merely choosing. It is one thing to choose one thing out of many. It is another to choose, out of a collective set, a number of things that you like and to reject other things that you do not like (the smorgasbord). I maintain that I chose something that required me to accept it whole-hog; including things that I didn't like, or at least, didn't understand. The option of "shopping around" for something that I liked was not left open to me.

Also, I would object to your use of the word "resonate", which implies that I chose it because 'it felt good', or at least, for non-rational reasons. I would say "consciously found to be true", and THAT's why I chose it.

Of course you can pick *not* to follow Orthodoxy's rules, and that feeds into my other comment. Because if you don't follow the rules, at that point the Hand of God comes down and smites you somehow. If you follow my analogy, tho, at some point along the developmental continuum, the Hand of God should just step back and say, "I've taught you all I can. My job is done," and no smiting would occur.

Now I personally believe that people always get what they deserve. I tend to think that it's less the Hand of God getting involved, and more that people's behaviors will draw out predictable behaviors from others. But that's a repercussion, not a punishment. See the difference?

As to your other point, about kids not having the big picture -- I would agree. But as they mature, they develop the ability to see the big picture, and eventually become parents themselves. I dunno if you've ever had the experience of hearing your parent's words coming out of your own mouth. Then, if you're paying attention, you might get a flash of insight: "*Now* I get why Dad said that to me!"

The Christian God *never* allows you to have that insight. As far as he's concerned, you will never be mature enough to understand why he does what he does. He's not training you to be a grownup. He's training you to be a perpetual child.

I have to say that from this, I can only conclude that you didn't actually try to understand my post. if you were to learn what "theosis" is, you would drop this talk that claims that we are to be kept as children. If you examined Orthodoxy at all, you would quickly learn that the entire paradigm of punishment (a staple of western Christianity) does not exist in Orthodoxy. It seems clear that you are coming from assumptions based on your (valid) experiences with western Christianity. In Orthodoxy God is not a prosecutor; He is a Surgeon, and all of this stuff we are supposed to do is meant to save our lives, just as medicine and an exercise regime do. That we don't like the medicine, or understand how it works, or don't want to do the exercise, is not really relevant.

Weez, the difference between that kindergarten teacher and one's choice of religion is that 2+2=4 is proven. Nobody has yet been able to prove irrefutably the existence of God. (If they had, we wouldn't be having this discussion.)

When you speak of "what has been proved" you are already coming from a specific philosophy, a worldview, generally known as materialism - where a major assumption is that the only truths that can and should be passed on to our children are those which can be proved scientifically.

This just speaks to the general problem ( I would say 'impossibility') of teaching the children of people who hold different philosophies (worldviews) under one roof. Someone's philosophy is bound to dominate and push out and de facto deny the others, and those parents will be losers, whether they know it or not. In our case a philosophy or faith (which comes with a pre-packaged philosophy) is declared to be, not a matter of truth, but a matter of one's personal opinion. It comes back to the complete collapse of philosophy in our time (and I am not speaking of what is taught in philosophy courses - although that is part of the symptoms). The complete ascendancy and worship of the physical sciences (materialism) and the complete abandonment of philosophy - the fact that it is not taught in school at all, even though it is the very first thing that determines how we are to understand and value everything else, is a huge, screaming sign of that. We are probably the most un-philosophical people in history, even as we can claim to be the most scientific. If our philosophy is wrong, then it doesn't matter how good our physical sciences are.
If we don't read links, I suppose this will pass ignored, but it's a pity:

chesterton.org/gkc/philosopher/revivalpPhilosophy.htm

Chesterton is always both entertaining and instructive.

Another related thought:

The general notion
that science establishes agnosticism is a sort of mystification produced
by talking Latin and Greek instead of plain English. Science is
the Latin for knowledge. Agnosticism is the Greek for ignorance.
It is not self-evident that ignorance is the goal of knowledge.
It is the ignorance and not the knowledge that produces the current
notion that free thought weakens theism. It is the real world,
that we see with our own eyes, that obviously unfolds a plan of things
that fit into each other. It is only a remote and misty legend that
ever pretended to explain it by the automatic advantage of the "fit."

www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/The_Thing.txt

[aliantha]

Rus, as usual, you and I are talking past one another. It's pointless to discuss this stuff with you when your only agenda is to try to convert me. Once again, nice talking with you.

[Cybrweez]

Just as we are free to disagree with it even if we do believe that God exists. God does not determine the bad stuff for those who do not believe he does.

Are you saying that a God can exist, but that He might not be in authority over all? Or are you saying the God of the Bible, specifically, if He exists, He is not in authority over all? I'm just baffled. When my kid says, its great you're my parent, but you have no authority over me, I say, nice idea, now go to your room.

You are certainly free not to accept that, hence the idea that God doesn't allow people to go their own way is silly. In fact, if we use the Bible as a reference, Jesus allowed someone to walk away, b/c he was tied to his possessions. Further, the analogy of of leaving the nest doesn't hold when you follow it to its conclusion, namely, that God knows all and is perfect, and there is never a point where your ideas of how to live would be better than His. If we meet anyone in life, parent or otherwise, that we recognize is wiser than us, we don't ignore their advice simply b/c we don't want to consider ourselves "childish". I would say that is childish.

ali and fist, you both miss my point about 2+2. Its has nothing to do w/provable, but rather the idea that some truth is narrow in a bad light, and other, well, its ok to be narrow, b/c its true. So when someone says Christianity is true, therefore anything contradictory is false, the response is not, you're narrow minded (or arrogant), but if you're consistent, the response is, that's what I would expect from someone who believed that it is true. (and this is in general, I couldn't say whether such responses are common here in the Close - well, the arrogant one I could).

ali, I also have to say to brush off rus as just trying to convert you is a bit over the top. I only see responses to your comments, he could just as easily say you're just trying to convert him and brush you off.

rus, what do you mean by the idea of punishment in western Christianity?

[aliantha]

Weez, re 2+2: You're absolutely right. Equating a mathematical formula with a belief in the Christian God *is* exactly what I would expect from a Christian. But I am not Christian, so equating the two appears absurd to me. And if you, as a Christian, offer that argument to a non-Christian as proof of the existence of God, you should expect the non-Christian's reaction to be bafflement. IOW, don't try to use it as a recruiting tool; it doesn't translate well.

The difference between rus and me is that Pagans don't proselytize. I'm not out to convert anybody. But rus's agenda, ever since he got here, has been to try to convince us all of the superiority not just of Christianity (because someone like, say, Furls isn't quite enough of a Christian for him ), but of Orthodoxy. I've watched him for months now, alternately flattering us for telling us how smart we are and denigrating us for not reading/not understanding/not buying what GKC says. And by "us", I mean every Watcher who is not some flavor of fundamentalist Christian.

What set me off *this* time was: "...if you were to learn what theosis is...if you examined Orthodoxy at all...." The implication being that I -- that *we* -- have simply not studied the question in the proper depth and for the proper amount of time if we have not come to the same conclusions he has.

For the record, I've looked as far into Orthodoxy as I care to. I see the same flaws in it as I see in Christianity as a whole: there's no Feminine in the Godhead, and there's an overarching belief that humans are more important than anything else in the universe. I consider both of those positions to be not just wrong wrong wrong, but dangerous to the continuation of life on this planet.

But hey, it's a free country. And I would be the first to say that being Pagan ain't for everybody. If being Christian makes you happy, go for it. (As my daughter Magickmaker has been known to say, everyone is entitled to their opinion -- even if it's wrong. )

[Cybrweez]

Weez, re 2+2: You're absolutely right. Equating a mathematical formula with a belief in the Christian God *is* exactly what I would expect from a Christian. But I am not Christian, so equating the two appears absurd to me. And if you, as a Christian, offer that argument to a non-Christian as proof of the existence of God, you should expect the non-Christian's reaction to be bafflement. IOW, don't try to use it as a recruiting tool; it doesn't translate well.

Yea, no worries, that's not my argument. And I wouldn't even equate the two anyway. 2 is a concept invented by man, so of course its easier to "prove" 2+2, we define what they mean, hence, we define the outcome. You can't equate something that transcends man to that.

The difference between rus and me is that Pagans don't proselytize.

I guess its perception. Aren't you trying to get rus to see the errors of his thinking? Isn't that proselytizing? Not specifically for paganism, but against Christianity, or Orthodoxy. In my mind, not enough of a difference to say one is proselytizing, and one isn't. I see proselytizing in the 'Tank as well, and I see nothing wrong w/it.

I've watched him for months now, alternately flattering us for telling us how smart we are and denigrating us for not reading/not understanding/not buying what GKC says.

Well, I don't think those 2 statements are mutually exclusive (and I pass no comment on whether the claim is true of rus). But, you certainly can be insanely intelligent, but have spent no time understanding what GKC says, b/c you don't care too. So don't be offended if someone says you haven't studied it deeply if, in truth, you haven't!

What set me off *this* time was: "...if you were to learn what theosis is...if you examined Orthodoxy at all...." The implication being that I -- that *we* -- have simply not studied the question in the proper depth and for the proper amount of time if we have not come to the same conclusions he has.

Yes, I think this is a slippery slope. I can see the reason, b/c people do debate issues w/o having actually studied them. They listen to opinion heads on TV or elsewhere, and spout that as if they have knowledge (this applies certainly to more areas then religion). So, when talking about economics, politics, theology, philosophy, there comes a point where if you haven't studied/comtemplated these issues deeply, you are out of your league. But, where that line is, is of course subjective.

For the record, I've looked as far into Orthodoxy as I care to. I see the same flaws in it as I see in Christianity as a whole: there's no Feminine in the Godhead, and there's an overarching belief that humans are more important than anything else in the universe. I consider both of those positions to be not just wrong wrong wrong, but dangerous to the continuation of life on this planet.

Yes, and I can see why that belief would bias any deeper study you may do on Christianity or Orthodoxy. You have certain beliefs that are "right" no matter what, and anything that disagrees is automatically disqualified. As rus has said, we all have dogmas.

(As my daughter Magickmaker has been known to say, everyone is entitled to their opinion -- even if it's wrong. )

Yea, popular saying. I guess the humor comes from the mocking of moral relativism?

EDIT: fixed a quote, and realized this may be first time I've actually gone thru someone's post and quoted and responded to multiple statements

[aliantha]

For starters: Apologies, rus, for talking about you as if you're not here. And Weez, congrats on mastering the multiple-quote calisthenics -- it's a pain, isn't it?

The difference between rus and me is that Pagans don't proselytize.

I guess its perception. Aren't you trying to get rus to see the errors of his thinking? Isn't that proselytizing? Not specifically for paganism, but against Christianity, or Orthodoxy.

I'm not trying to turn anybody against Christianity or Orthodoxy. Honest! I don't care what religion y'all are.

The trap I keep falling into is trying to get rus to see that "different people are different." That is, just because two intelligent adults read the same books and study the same religious material, it doesn't mean they will agree, or have the same reactions, or the same epiphanies in the same places, or *any*thing. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's not good v. evil or what-have-you, it's just the way the world works. If we were having a similar discussion about virtually any other topic -- even some of the more volatile 'Tank topics (*cough*abortion*cough*) -- observers who don't have an entrenched philosophical stance can see both sides. It's more fun to participate in a debate like that, rather than having someone constantly harping on the same points he's made a billion times and not being willing to entertain any other position but his own.

*I* think it's more fun, anyway.

So I see something that rus posts that I disagree with, and I post about it, and suddenly I'm not arguing with rus, I'm arguing with the entire 2,000-year-long history and bibliography of the Orthodox Church *and* G.K. Chesterton *and* C.S. Lewis. And not only do I not have enough time in the years left to me on this plane of existence to read, memorize and critique each of those works -- even if I set aside everything else I intend to do before I die -- but I have no interest in doing so, because I know I'm not interested in becoming a Christian.

And *then* I remember: why does rus want me to learn everything there is to know about Orthodoxy? Because he truly believes he knows The Truth and he wants everybody to know it, too, because that's what Christians do, they proselytize. And since he's convinced he knows The Truth, he's *never* going to admit that any other worldview could be valid. And as soon as I remember *that*, I realize there's no point in my continuing the discussion. So I bow out.

I've done this dance enough times now with rus that I zip through this reasoning at lightning speed. So while it might look to you as though I jumped to a conclusion, rest assured that there was sound reasoning behind it.

What set me off *this* time was: "...if you were to learn what theosis is...if you examined Orthodoxy at all...." The implication being that I -- that *we* -- have simply not studied the question in the proper depth and for the proper amount of time if we have not come to the same conclusions he has.

Yes, I think this is a slippery slope. I can see the reason, b/c people do debate issues w/o having actually studied them. They listen to opinion heads on TV or elsewhere, and spout that as if they have knowledge (this applies certainly to more areas then religion). So, when talking about economics, politics, theology, philosophy, there comes a point where if you haven't studied/comtemplated these issues deeply, you are out of your league. But, where that line is, is of course subjective.

I agree with you. And that's another reason I bail: I am never going to be sufficiently learned on the subject of Orthodoxy to suit rus until I have converted.

For the record, I've looked as far into Orthodoxy as I care to. I see the same flaws in it as I see in Christianity as a whole: there's no Feminine in the Godhead, and there's an overarching belief that humans are more important than anything else in the universe. I consider both of those positions to be not just wrong wrong wrong, but dangerous to the continuation of life on this planet.

Yes, and I can see why that belief would bias any deeper study you may do on Christianity or Orthodoxy. You have certain beliefs that are "right" no matter what, and anything that disagrees is automatically disqualified. As rus has said, we all have dogmas.

Guilty as charged.

(As my daughter Magickmaker has been known to say, everyone is entitled to their opinion -- even if it's wrong. )

Yea, popular saying. I guess the humor comes from the mocking of moral relativism?

Well, she's Wiccan, so I doubt that mocking moral relativism is high on her to-do list. To me, it's more of a poke at people who pay lip service to being open-minded but can't step away from their own entrenched prejudices. But hey, I could be wrong.

[Fist and Faith]

Two Bach harpsichordists were arguing over interpretation. One said, "You continue to play Bach your way, and I'll continue to play it Bach's way."

Just as we are free to disagree with it even if we do believe that God exists. God does not determine the bad stuff for those who do not believe he does.

Are you saying that a God can exist, but that He might not be in authority over all?

Sure. But this is what we're really talking about:

Or are you saying the God of the Bible, specifically, if He exists, He is not in authority over all?

Yes, this is what I'm saying. If God is real, and if there's an afterlife to be considered, God may have the final say in my afterlife. In that sense, sure, God makes the rules. That's authority. But that's not moral authority. Again, we're having this discussion because you are saying that God decides what is right and wrong. But he does not decide that for me. There's no such thing. I know what I think is right and wrong, and I decide if I will do things I think are wrong, or if I'll suffer the penalty for not doing them. Or for not believing they are right. According to the Bible, God did things that I think are reprehensible. If God did, indeed, give me my moral compass, then he knows darned well how I feel about those things. And, again, even if I did find reason to believe the God you believe in is the Truth, I don't see how I could possibly suddenly feel that those reprehensible things are acceptable behavior.

You are certainly free not to accept that, hence the idea that God doesn't allow people to go their own way is silly. In fact, if we use the Bible as a reference, Jesus allowed someone to walk away, b/c he was tied to his possessions. Further, the analogy of of leaving the nest doesn't hold when you follow it to its conclusion, namely, that God knows all and is perfect, and there is never a point where your ideas of how to live would be better than His. If we meet anyone in life, parent or otherwise, that we recognize is wiser than us, we don't ignore their advice simply b/c we don't want to consider ourselves "childish". I would say that is childish.

All entirely true. However, I do not think God's behavior demonstrates anything close to perfect wisdom or behavior. And if we meet anyone in life that we recognize as doing bad things, we might be wise to ignore them from time to time. The Bible has some pretty darned wise and beautiful things in it, too, and I'll take that advice. Just not everything.

ali and fist, you both miss my point about 2+2. Its has nothing to do w/provable, but rather the idea that some truth is narrow in a bad light, and other, well, its ok to be narrow, b/c its true. So when someone says Christianity is true, therefore anything contradictory is false, the response is not, you're narrow minded (or arrogant), but if you're consistent, the response is, that's what I would expect from someone who believed that it is true. (and this is in general, I couldn't say whether such responses are common here in the Close - well, the arrogant one I could).

The narrow-mindedness and arrogance is in assuming that the rest of us are not, cannot be, as sure of our beliefs as the Christian is. That we have not arrived at our beliefs through as much introspection, self-contemplation, discussion with others, and reading of various sacred texts and other writings, as the Christian has. That we are just being stubborn. That we are closed-minded.

We Simply Don't Believe The Same Things That The Christian Does. And it is entirely possible that we never will, no matter what we read or hear.


As for proselytizing...

I am not in the least bit frustrated that neither you nor rus has budged one tiny bit in my direction. I get pretty angry when I'm dismissed as being stubborn, as though I couldn't possibly hold to the crap I'm saying if I really gave Christianity a go. Or when I'm considered to be a Christian-to-be, instead of someone with my own fully formed, fully held beliefs. But I'm not remotely annoyed that you guys don't see things my way, and embrace my wisdom. I'm not here to get you to see things my way and embrace my wisdom. I'm here to exchange ideas, and learn about other people and their beliefs. With those goals, there is no possibility of futility. I can't be frustrated by your refusal to join me. Heh.

[Cybrweez]

I know what I think is right and wrong, and I decide if I will do things I think are wrong, or if I'll suffer the penalty for not doing them. Or for not believing they are right.

Yea, I think that was my point way back when. In essence, the bit about suffering the penalty is exactly why God does have moral authority. Currently, on this planet, if you're American, US law has moral authority over you. Doesn't matter if you disagree w/its morals, you suffer for not doing them. You can live by your morals, but when it steps on the authority's toes, their moral authority trumps yours. That's what I mean by our personal moral authority doesn't mean much. Of course, it means much to us, and even the Christian or any believer in any religion, lives by their personal moral code (its just the source is different), but outside of us, doesn't mean anything.

The narrow-mindedness and arrogance is in assuming that the rest of us are not, cannot be, as sure of our beliefs as the Christian is. That we have not arrived at our beliefs through as much introspection, self-contemplation, discussion with others, and reading of various sacred texts and other writings, as the Christian has. That we are just being stubborn. That we are closed-minded.

Well, rus can answer those accusations I can only hope I haven't come across as intimating those thoughts. I can say the accusation of being closed-minded is usually reserved for the Christian.

I am not in the least bit frustrated that neither you nor rus has budged one tiny bit in my direction. I get pretty angry when I'm dismissed as being stubborn, as though I couldn't possibly hold to the crap I'm saying if I really gave Christianity a go. Or when I'm considered to be a Christian-to-be, instead of someone with my own fully formed, fully held beliefs. But I'm not remotely annoyed that you guys don't see things my way, and embrace my wisdom. I'm not here to get you to see things my way and embrace my wisdom. I'm here to exchange ideas, and learn about other people and their beliefs. With those goals, there is no possibility of futility. I can't be frustrated by your refusal to join me. Heh.

I'm in the same boat. I get amazed at statements I find unbelievable (whether here or in the 'Tank), but not frustrated if people don't "see the light". I've learned that lesson as well, altho I still can't help myself sometimes (like in politics, I may try to get someone to acknowledge giving govt more control is bad, b/c they have power to affect it. In same sense, I may try in spriitual discussion b/c I believe eternity much more important than politics) That's why I won't try to answer your claims about God's reprehensible acts, not worth my time, or yours. I just try to chime in when I see things are aren't accurate, especially in regards to the Bible or Christianity in general, and to learn more about what people are thinking.

[Cybrweez]

Well, she's Wiccan, so I doubt that mocking moral relativism is high on her to-do list. To me, it's more of a poke at people who pay lip service to being open-minded but can't step away from their own entrenched prejudices. But hey, I could be wrong.

Well, I think its mocking moral relativism, b/c of course the statement itself is entrenched in prejudice, that the other is wrong! Which is the problem w/moral relativism.

[aliantha]

Well, she's Wiccan, so I doubt that mocking moral relativism is high on her to-do list. To me, it's more of a poke at people who pay lip service to being open-minded but can't step away from their own entrenched prejudices. But hey, I could be wrong.

Well, I think its mocking moral relativism, b/c of course the statement itself is entrenched in prejudice, that the other is wrong! Which is the problem w/moral relativism.

Maybe it's a matter of degree....

KIDDING!

[Avatar]

I would hope that most moral relativists are able to mock themselves. (They're probably not though. )

--A

[Fist and Faith]

I know what I think is right and wrong, and I decide if I will do things I think are wrong, or if I'll suffer the penalty for not doing them. Or for not believing they are right.

Yea, I think that was my point way back when. In essence, the bit about suffering the penalty is exactly why God does have moral authority. Currently, on this planet, if you're American, US law has moral authority over you. Doesn't matter if you disagree w/its morals, you suffer for not doing them. You can live by your morals, but when it steps on the authority's toes, their moral authority trumps yours. That's what I mean by our personal moral authority doesn't mean much. Of course, it means much to us, and even the Christian or any believer in any religion, lives by their personal moral code (its just the source is different), but outside of us, doesn't mean anything.

Yeah, in the Might Makes Right sense, God is the moral authority. (Hypothetically speaking, for my part. Heh) I thought you were saying it was something we were all compelled to accept as objectively accurate morality.

[rusmeister]

Hi again!

On the general ability to understand others, I just spent a few days with a good friend in another Russian city, an Orthodox American with a similar educational background, Russian specialist, literature and all, and I was amazed at the extent to which we could not touch base on intellectual ideas, even though we agree on a critical point - faith. It just has me feeling futility in the very attempt to communicate any thoughts on truth.
Good posting, esp. liked CW's last few posts. They hit some nails.

The difference between rus and me is that Pagans don't proselytize. I'm not out to convert anybody. But rus's agenda, ever since he got here, has been to try to convince us all of the superiority not just of Christianity (because someone like, say, Furls isn't quite enough of a Christian for him Rolling Eyes), but of Orthodoxy. I've watched him for months now, alternately flattering us for telling us how smart we are and denigrating us for not reading/not understanding/not buying what GKC says. And by "us", I mean every Watcher who is not some flavor of fundamentalist Christian.

I realize that I can't convert anyone. I have become increasingly skeptical of even any words of mine being able to convince anybody of anything; that people need to come to things on their own. If there were anything I was really hoping to convince you of, it was that there are responses to most of the objections that people generally raise that 'put paid' to those objections, which would force people to reconsider their established stands against faith.

I do think that people here tend to be more intelligent than average; I also think that they tend to have experience of (western) Christianity that
they generally do not have of Buddhism, Islam, etc, and therefore are unreasonably prejudiced against any experience of Christianity outside of their understanding - this most especially concerns eastern Christianity, where most of the paradigms you are familiar with and most of the things you object to do not apply. I don' t think it is denigration to say that you don't know about something that really is outside of your experience any more than it is for you to speak of something that is really outside of my experience.

If there were anything I could hope to convince you of, it is only that first step of seeing that while you really have come to reasonable postjudice regarding much of the Christianity that you know, you are prejudiced against what you don't know, and knowledge of eastern Christianity in the West is generally nil.

Rus, as usual, you and I are talking past one another. It's pointless to discuss this stuff with you when your only agenda is to try to convert me.

What set me off *this* time was: "...if you were to learn what theosis is...if you examined Orthodoxy at all...." The implication being that I -- that *we* -- have simply not studied the question in the proper depth and for the proper amount of time if we have not come to the same conclusions he has.

For the record, I've looked as far into Orthodoxy as I care to. I see the same flaws in it as I see in Christianity as a whole: there's no Feminine in the Godhead, and there's an overarching belief that humans are more important than anything else in the universe. I consider both of those positions to be not just wrong wrong wrong, but dangerous to the continuation of life on this planet.

Ali, you said very specifically,

Of course you can pick *not* to follow Orthodoxy's rules, and that feeds into my other comment. Because if you don't follow the rules, at that point the Hand of God comes down and smites you somehow. If you follow my analogy, tho, at some point along the developmental continuum, the Hand of God should just step back and say, "I've taught you all I can. My job is done," and no smiting would occur.

Now I personally believe that people always get what they deserve. I tend to think that it's less the Hand of God getting involved, and more that people's behaviors will draw out predictable behaviors from others. But that's a repercussion, not a punishment. See the difference?

As to your other point, about kids not having the big picture -- I would agree. But as they mature, they develop the ability to see the big picture, and eventually become parents themselves. I dunno if you've ever had the experience of hearing your parent's words coming out of your own mouth. Laughing Then, if you're paying attention, you might get a flash of insight: "*Now* I get why Dad said that to me!"

The Christian God *never* allows you to have that insight. As far as he's concerned, you will never be mature enough to understand why he does what he does. He's not training you to be a grownup. He's training you to be a perpetual child.

I responded specifically to your charges that we speak or even think of God "smiting" people - something that is a response to the western juridical understanding of our relationship to God and totally alien to Orthodoxy, and that of God "not letting us mature", something actively denied by the doctrine of theosis - which, if you were familiar with, you never would have said. That's not ''talking past you" - it's a direct response to and refutation of the ideas you expressed. Talking past you would have meant ignoring your comments and talking about something else. So in this particular case, (theosis) you really have come to wrong conclusions and need to revise them.

As to the things you consider wrong and dangerous, obviously the question of whether they are or not depends on whether your worldview is sufficiently correct - if you really DO correctly perceive the nature of the universe (which has everything to do with the basis on which you perceive it). I no longer think that there's really anything I can say that would really be heard and cause any revisions and this

For the record, I've looked as far into Orthodoxy as I care to.

is why. You don't care to, and I may be partially to blame for that. Perhaps the only thing that can really prevent you from discovering Orthodoxy is me - my failings and inadequacies.

[aliantha]

Rus: My lack of interest in Orthodoxy has nothing to do with your failings and inadequacies. It has everything to do with the fact that I am content with my current religious beliefs and do not feel anything is lacking there.

But I'm happy to indulge you one more time. Can you refute my two baseline objections to Christianity as a whole? Specifically: 1. Does Orthodoxy include the Feminine in the Godhead? 2. Does Orthodoxy acknowledge that other sentient and non-sentient beings on Earth are as important as humanity?

Since you have challenged me again on theosis, I looked it up on Wikipedia. Basically, in the vernacular, it's another word for the process of becoming sanctified. The first step is purification; then comes study, or illumination, or knowledge of God; and then, after death, resurrection. And the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is what makes it possible for humans. That about right? (And btw, you coulda just explained that much in your original post, instead of making it sound like I was ignorant for not knowing the word. Just sayin'. )

[Fist and Faith]

Does Orthodoxy acknowledge that other sentient and non-sentient beings on Earth are as important as humanity?

Don't know about Orthodoxy, but I don't acknowledge other sentient beings on Earth other than humans. I've never run across one, at any rate. I see no reason to think there can't be anything in the universe more intellectually sophisticated/advanced than us. No reason to think there can't be huge numbers of different worlds with such beings. But I certainly don't have reason to believe there are any, either.

As for "as important", it depends on how you look at it. In the grand scheme of things, I see no difference between us and ants. Just a bunch of little things running around trying to keep the species going.

But looked at another way, I will visit devestation upon anyone or anything that tries to harm my children or wife. They are the most important things in this universe. It's difficult to imagine an upper limit to what I would do to keep them safe.

[Kaydene]

I always thought that, biblically anyway, God is everywhere and there is nowhere He is not. That God is every thing and there was no thing She is not.....

But I also feel as if that belief isn't heeded anymore in many church clubs and most branches of the Christian sect.

[Menolly]

Have you read up on Panentheism, Kaydene? It's a bit different than Pantheism, and seems to have more of a tie to Judeo/Chr-stian/Islam teachings than Pantheism does.

[Kaydene]

I like it so far. I tend to believe that I am, in fact, God. I hold to that, and that way, my choices are cemented in my own responsibility and consequences.

[Menolly]

Everyone is G-d. Everything is G-d. And G-d is everything we can imagine.
...and more than we can imagine.

This cosmos, this universe, and any other dimension or plane which exists, whether we can conceive of it or not, is G-d.

G-d need not be known as "G-d" to exist.
G-d...is.
In whatever way we can manage to approach the concept.

I truly believe, whether one chooses religion or philosophy for their personal approach to the concept, that behind the mask of any religion or philosophy, is the face of G-d.

All paths have a spark of Truth, and as such, are equally valid. Even Unbelief.

[Kaydene]

Have you ever read "Conversations with God" by Neale Donald Walsch? It was required reading for my Comparative Religions class. The professor said that to take it literally is to miss the point, which I thought was pretty cool. But yeah, it touches on this subject a lot. I thought it was an all-around interesting take on God.