tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post41141287445314736..comments2024-02-13T12:50:30.457-05:00Comments on Rants Within the Undead God: Christian Crudities: An Aesthetic Condemnation of Christian MythsBenjamin Cainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-78350447339146606452013-07-18T11:19:38.879-04:002013-07-18T11:19:38.879-04:00The Orthodox view may have some advantages over th...The Orthodox view may have some advantages over the Western one, but I still think my critique here is general enough that it likely addresses the basics of both kinds of Christianity. The anthropomorphism and misanthropy vs progressivism charges still stick, I think. But I'll look more into the Orthodox side and see if I can come up with something more specific to say.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-61737620513103873582013-07-18T10:39:52.246-04:002013-07-18T10:39:52.246-04:00Even with your more appealing and humane Orthodox ...Even with your more appealing and humane Orthodox version, to this misotheist we are still talking about a Failed Deity at best. At worst, a game playing entity that is so alien to our monkey brained psychology that I question how we are supposed to worship or love It. Especially given how the texts themselves directly state that It CREATED evil and suffering in the beginning. The Fall of Humanity did not create evil, the Omniscient deity did. <br /><br />The only version of Christianity that answers the Question of Evil at all is to me the Gnostic one that posits an imperfect fragment which is inherently flawed and yes, evil. Brian Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-24998964890913604392013-07-17T12:33:27.024-04:002013-07-17T12:33:27.024-04:00"What's the relevance of the difference b..."What's the relevance of the difference between the views of original sin?"<br /><br />Perhaps less significant to an outsider, but believe me, it has a big role to play in the day-in, day-out profession of the church and the attitude towards its believers. Which is to say that the *experience* of faith is significantly different between Orthodox and Western traditions, in the sense that Orthodox Christianity spends much less time attempting to cultivate a deep, inbred guilt complex. In short, the Orthodox view is such that it could never be taken to the extreme of Calvinistic total depravity, this constant self-persecution over failure.<br /><br /><br />"And whether hell is a prison where we're punished or a less pleasant experience of God, it's still something we'd want to be saved from and it still reflects separation from God."<br /><br />Well, the separation is purely internal. The difference is in their perception of God's presence: for the believer, bliss, because he has come to love God, for the unbeliever, this nearness is not bliss, because he has not come to love God.<br /><br /><br />"How important is faith, though, to the Orthodox?"<br /><br />Faith is important to the Orthodox, though, as in the Catholic tradition, significant weight is placed upon the sacraments as a means of experiencing the grace of God, which distinguishes this from the "faith alone" ethos of the Protestant traditions.<br /><br />Again, there are univsersalist Orthodox priests and theologians, so there is not uniform consensus on th salvation question. But yes, redemption is often understood as a cooperative process between both God and man.Ryan H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12772868175172789393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-16616281529866835222013-07-17T09:31:50.027-04:002013-07-17T09:31:50.027-04:00The main difference here is that the Orthodox don&...The main difference here is that the Orthodox don't think of Jesus's death as a sacrificial punishment. Following Paul, though, Westerners also speak of the need for the Holy Spirit to change our nature through faith in the efficacy of Jesus's death and resurrection. Just as Jesus died to his old body and was raised to a new one, we die to our "old man of sin" and experience a hint of our resurrected body in the present life when the Holy Spirit comes to inhabit those who have faith in Jesus. That's the alleged mechanism that connects Jesus's crucifixion with Christians: faith invites the Holy Spirit to transform our inner nature. I didn't go into this in the article's summary, but my point was more fundamental and universal, I think: Jesus came to bridge the divide between God and his favoured creations.<br /><br />The other differences look more like details. What's the relevance of the difference between the views of original sin? Either way, there's a separation requiring God to save us from hell. And whether hell is a prison where we're punished or a less pleasant experience of God, it's still something we'd want to be saved from and it still reflects separation from God. The Orthodox seem to think more about godlikeness rather than reward and punishment, and indeed the Western metaphor seems more exoteric while the Orthodox view is closer to what Huxley called the perennial religion. Still, the basic narrative is the same.<br /><br />How important is faith, though, to the Orthodox? Wikipedia speaks of the "effective" change, but if we were all saved by Jesus's transformation, hell would be empty or nonexistent. So we must have been only potentially transformed by Jesus's death. Faith and the Holy Spirit must also be needed, which I believe is the Pauline and Western view. Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-28146822482250578432013-07-16T22:25:34.033-04:002013-07-16T22:25:34.033-04:00The differences are far more than political. The O...The differences are far more than political. The Orthodox Church has a very different way of *thinking* about God, Jesus, and his work than the Western Church (I group here the Protestants and the Catholics, since their essential thought descends primarily from an Augustinian construction of Christianity).<br /><br />Short of going into all the differences, which would take quite a bit, the Wikipedia page offers a helpful brief summary of the Orthodox understanding of the Christian narrative:<br /><br />"At some point in the beginnings of human existence man was faced with a choice: to learn the difference between good and evil through observation or through participation. The biblical story of Adam and Eve represents this choice by mankind to participate in evil. This event is commonly referred to as the "fall of man" and it represents a fundamental change in human nature. When Orthodox Christians refer to Fallen Nature they believe that human nature is open to acts of evil, and not that the humaneness joins with evil. They reject the Augustinian position that the descendants of Adam and Eve are actually guilty of their sin. As a result of this sin, mankind was doomed to be separated from God. This was mankind's ultimate dilemma. The solution to this problem was for God to effect another change in human nature. Orthodox Christians believe that Christ Jesus was both God and Man absolutely. He was born, lived, died, and rose again by the power of the Holy Spirit. Through God's participation in humanity, human nature is changed thus saving us from the fate of Hell (Orthodox reject the idea that Christ died to give God "satisfaction", as taught by Anselm, or as a punitive substitute as taught by the Reformers). The effective change included all those who had died from the beginning of time – saving everyone including Adam and Eve. This process, to Orthodox Christians, is what is meant by "salvation". The ultimate goal is theosis – an even closer union with God and closer likeness to God than existed in the Garden of Eden. This very process is called Deification or "God became man that man might become 'god'". However, it must be emphasized that Orthodox Christians do not believe that man literally becomes God in His essence, or a god. More accurately, Christ's salvific work enables man to become "partakers of the Divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4); that is to say, man is united to God in Christ."<br /><br />Notice that this narrative understands the accomplishment of Christ and his Crucifixion quite differently than the narratives presented by the Catholic and most classical Protestant understandings.<br /><br />Other differences abound, too, between the Orthodox and Catholic theological traditions, ala Hell, which, in Orthodox thought, is not considered a place of torment or prison, but simply the experience of God's presence by unbelievers (other Orthodox theologians hold out for the hope of universal salvation, citing some of the early church fathers who did so, as well).<br /><br />As to whether it's more in line with what Jesus wanted, it's a strange question. I'm not sure we can approach a "historical" Jesus, since the only Jesus we have is mediated to us. The Orthodox tradition certainly lines up with the understandings of the early church patriarchs in a way that no other church tradition currently does, and thus could be construed as a stronger extension of the "normative Christianity" that some have argued rose in those early periods.Ryan H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12772868175172789393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-22066851056708591142013-07-16T19:45:52.559-04:002013-07-16T19:45:52.559-04:00I don't know as much about the Eastern Orthodo...I don't know as much about the Eastern Orthodox Church. As I understand it, though, the main doctrines of the two churches are similar if not the same, and the differences between the churches were largely political. Can you tell me where an Eastern Christian would disagree with the section above, called The Essence of Christian Theology? That section's my shot at summarizing the core of Christian teachings. Do the Western and Eastern Christians disagree about that core? <br /><br />Would you say that the Western church has compromised more and is less in line with what Jesus wanted? I think only the monks or ascetic priests are anywhere close to being like Jesus, but that would apply both to Westerners and Easterners. And where do the Eastern Christians disagree with Augustine on core doctrinal matters (Trinity, original sin, just war, etc)? I'm not up on the differences, so I'd have to look into them.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-1646660857286201192013-07-16T18:25:13.305-04:002013-07-16T18:25:13.305-04:00Interesting, but the sense of Christianity present...Interesting, but the sense of Christianity presented here is decidedly Western (which is to say, Augustinian). I would be interested in a response from you regarding an Eastern Orthodox sense of the Christian narrative.Ryan H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12772868175172789393noreply@blogger.com