Is It Faith or Good Works (That Gets U Into Hvn)?

[Montalban]

Re: Faith without works is dead.

On what basis do you say it is impossible to be unsaved?

For the record, my position is "Of course it is possible to be unsaved!"

Then how do you know if you're 'truly' saved? You might think you're saved, but still be unsaved.

 

[Montalban]

Re: Faith without works is dead.

John 6:47

If you read it in context, it's actually a prefigurement for Holy Commuinon
John 6:43"Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.'[d] Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. 46No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. 48I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

It is because Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life", He didn't say "I will show you the way, the truth, and the life" or "I am like the way..." etc.
We must particpate in life as He did, and this is how we show faith in Jesus. Otherwise it's akin to saying "I am supporting you" and doing nothing but giving someone your words; those words would then ring hollow.

We are called to live a life like Christ and participate in Him.

 

[Rev.]

Re: Faith without works is dead.

No, the first cause in Catholic understanding of salvation is God's grace. You make them sound like Pellagians by stating that the first cause is this act or 'work'.

What I'm saying does not negate what your saying. In the general sense, God's grace allowed for the gift of Jesus sacrificial death to attone for the sin of mankind. But it is the act of baptism to make salvation true for the individual.

"In faith the total wealth of Catholic experience is opened to a man when through Baptism he is reborn supernaturally and begins to share in the life of grace, the divine life communicated to man" (Catholicism Ed. by George Brantl, Washington Square Press, Inc. 1961. pg. 185 )

For the vast majority of Catholics, Baptism happens as infants. There can be no repentace or faith in one so young. Baptism becomes a means of guaranteeing a spot in heaven, because through Baptism, he is reborn spiritually.

 

[Rev.]

Re: Faith without works is dead.

We must particpate in life as He did, and this is how we show faith in Jesus. Otherwise it's akin to saying "I am supporting you" and doing nothing but giving someone your words; those words would then ring hollow.

We are called to live a life like Christ and participate in Him.

True, true!

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Re: Faith without works is dead.

Since not everyone (myself included) owns a bible, it would have been more useful if you'd cited the passages themselves, not just their locations, so people would know what you're talking about.

Here is a link to search for Bible verses; for future reference.

http://www.bartleby.com/108/

 

[Rev.]

Re: Faith without works is dead.

Since not everyone (myself included) owns a bible, it would have been more useful if you'd cited the passages themselves, not just their locations, so people would know what you're talking about.

I agree.

So, on Fonzarelli's behalf, I post them here:

"I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life." John 6:47

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." John 3:36

"He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life." 1 John 5:12

All show salvation in the present tense. It's not something that "will" happen or that it "might" happen but just IS.

None of these verses prove or disprove the possibility of losing one's salvation.


"And you have forgotten that word of encouragement that addresses you as sons:
"My son, do not make light of the Lord's discipline,
and do not lose heart when he rebukes you,
6because the Lord disciplines those he loves,
and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son."[a]

7Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? 8If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons. 9Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live! 10Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. 11No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it." Hebrews 12:5-11

"Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you." 1 Peter 5:7

"But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." Matthew 18:6

"And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus." Phillipians 4:19

"But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."
John 14:26

"God is our refuge and strength,
an ever-present help in trouble." Psalm 46:1

"Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" Matthew 4:4

"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers." Romans 8:28-29

These are the Biblical traits of a good father & our Heavenly Father. At no point does it suggest that God will kick you out of his family.

At no point do these verses say I can't walk away from Faith if I so choose. To say that I can/will be saved no matter what kinda undoes the whole idea of "free will."

And I don't think God wants anyone in heaven who doesn't want to be there.

 

[Montalban]

Re: Faith without works is dead.

What I'm saying does not negate what your saying. In the general sense, God's grace allowed for the gift of Jesus sacrificial death to attone for the sin of mankind. But it is the act of baptism to make salvation true for the individual.

"In faith the total wealth of Catholic experience is opened to a man when through Baptism he is reborn supernaturally and begins to share in the life of grace, the divine life communicated to man" (Catholicism Ed. by George Brantl, Washington Square Press, Inc. 1961. pg. 185 )

For the vast majority of Catholics, Baptism happens as infants. There can be no repentace or faith in one so young. Baptism becomes a means of guaranteeing a spot in heaven, because through Baptism, he is reborn spiritually.

I think you were emphasising the act of Baptism as the 'first cause' of salvation. And this is akin to pelagianism. (or is it spelt with two 'l's?)

It is true that baptism is a part of becoming one with God - we (Orthodox) partake in it, because Jesus did, and the Apostles baptised people.

However the first cause of everything related to salvation is God. God is eternally pouring out His salvation to us, and we need only accept this, to gain it - and it is an ongoing process... like staying healthy one needs to exercise.

 

[geekgrrl]

Re: Faith without works is dead.

[...]
52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
[...]
It is because Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life", He didn't say "I will show you the way, the truth, and the life" or "I am like the way..." etc.
[...]

To be honest, the first thing I thought of the first time I read this passage as a kid was of cannabalism. I can understand why listeners would be hesitant or skeptical.

And your pointing out that the statement, "I am the way, the truth and the life", was neither a metaphor nor a simile, nor issued with any semantic qualification, only serves, in my mind, to underscore that Jesus was a literalist. So when he speaks of "eating his flesh and drinking his blood", I have to wonder if he was advocating literal cannabalism.

After all, members of the animal kingdom have to consume other living things, be they plant or animal, to sustain their own existence. And whoever created this scheme of thngs didn't bother to differentiate whether one consumed a member of one's own species or a different one.

No wonder people were skeptical and maybe shocked to hear this. If somebody claiming to be God said this to me, I would be. After all, his listeners were mainly Jews who kept Kosher, didn't eat pork, etc., and would never dream of eating another human being. So if he was trying to tailor his message to the level of understanding of the culture in which he chose to manifest himself, Jesus invited misapprehension.

So when he finally indicated that you bake some bread and make some wine and then he'll somehow transform these, yet nothing visibly happens, what is the point in this whole exercise? How do you know that this bread isn't really just bread, this wine isn't really just wine, and a cigar isn't really just a cigar?

Why would an omnisicient deity ask for "faith" in all sorts of things from his created beings whose only gateway to the universe is through their senses? Why would God create someone only to deprecate and nullify the only entrée to creation this creature has -- reality and the creature's perception of it? Why didn't he demand the same faith of animals? After all, if he created them, he could make them understand him, couldn't he?

Yes, I know, churches call this "transubstantiation" a "mystery", but that's not a good enough answer for me. It sounds too much like a cop-out.

 

[Montalban]

Re: Faith without works is dead.

To be honest, the first thing I thought of the first time I read this passage as a kid was of cannabalism. I can understand why listeners would be hesitant or skeptical.

In fact the early church was beset by the criticisms from Pagans. It was said of pagans that Christians were 'cannibals'; this to me is part of the evidence that the church partook of Holy Communion.

(see the article "Why Early Christians Were So Despised" at http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps139.shtml). They made this mistake because they too understood that the early Christians were 'eating' Jesus.... evidenced in the writings of the time, and rebuked by Tertullian's apology.

And your pointing out that the statement, "I am the way, the truth and the life", was neither a metaphor nor a simile, nor issued with any semantic qualification, only serves, in my mind, to underscore that Jesus was a literalist. So when he speaks of "eating his flesh and drinking his blood", I have to wonder if he was advocating literal cannabalism.

We do believe that the bread and wine really do become His Body and Blood. We take Him into us.

After all, members of the animal kingdom have to consume other living things, be they plant or animal, to sustain their own existence. And whoever created this scheme of thngs didn't bother to differentiate whether one consumed a member of one's own species or a different one.

However Jesus does not diminish

No wonder people were skeptical and maybe shocked to hear this. If somebody claiming to be God said this to me, I would be. After all, his listeners were mainly Jews who kept Kosher, didn't eat pork, etc., and would never dream of eating another human being. So if he was trying to tailor his message to the level of understanding of the culture in which he chose to manifest himself, Jesus invited misapprehension.

So when he finally indicated that you bake some bread and make some wine and then he'll somehow transform these, yet nothing visibly happens, what is the point in this whole exercise? How do you know that this bread isn't really just bread, this wine isn't really just wine, and a cigar isn't really just a cigar?

For us it actually becomes His flesh and blood

1 Cor. 11 17ff St. Paul says that if you're just after a communal meal, then eat at home. The Liturgy, the Holy Communion is not a 'commerative meal'.

Why would an omnisicient deity ask for "faith" in all sorts of things from his created beings whose only gateway to the universe is through their senses?

He made us with senses. We will experience God through all of them. Catholics and Protestants try to understand God through 'speculation'; that is 'reason' and 'deduction'. Orthodox try to know God through 'experience', that is 'feeling' and 'deduction'. We say that we can know God 'noetically' (with the heart). And this is because God is in His essence unknowable, so we know we have no way of ever knowing Him (through reasoning), however we can come to feel God and partake in His warm embrace.

Why would God create someone only to deprecate and nullify the only entrée to creation this creature has -- reality and the creature's perception of it?

I've absolutely no idea what this means.

Why didn't he demand the same faith of animals? After all, if he created them, he could make them understand him, couldn't he?

Animals don't have souls. They could be 'made' to understand in that God could allow them to, but He has made them to be of a certain manner

Yes, I know, churches call this "transubstantiation" a "mystery", but that's not a good enough answer for me. It sounds too much like a cop-out.

With respect that 'cop-out' remark can sound like arrogance to me It assumes that all there is is explainable. Some things aren't. And the first step to wisdom is to realise just how little one knows; how little one can know.

Some times it is permissable to say "I don't know"

"When we read in Bouchet about miracles associated with the relics of Saint Hilary we can shrug it off: His right to be believed is not great enough to take away our freedom to challenge him. But to go on from there and condemn all similar accounts seems to me to be impudent in the extreme. Such a great saint as Augustine swears that he saw: a blind child restored to sight by the relics of Saint Gervaise and Saint Protasius at Milan; a woman in Carthage cured of a cancer by the sign of the cross made by a woman who had just been baptised; his close friend Hesperius driving off devils (who were infesting his house) by using a little soil taken from the sepulchre of our Lord, and that same soil, borne into the Church, suddenly curing a paralytic; a woman who, having touched the reliquary of Saint Stephen with a posy of flowers during a procession, rubbed her eyes with them afterwards and recovered her sight which she had recently lost... What are we to accuse him of - hum and the two holy bishops, Aurelius and Maximinus, whom he calls on as witnesses? Is it of ignorance, simple-mindedness, credulity, deliberate deception or imposture? .... 'Qui, ut rationem mullan afferent, ipsa auhtoritate me frangerent (Why, even if they gave no reasons, they would convince me by their very authority)
Michel de Montaigne in "That it is madness to judge the true and the false from our own capacities"

Montaigne (1993), "The Essays: A Selection", Penguin Classics

 

[Rev.]

Re: Faith without works is dead.

We do believe that the bread and wine really do become His Body and Blood. We take Him into us. For us it actually becomes His flesh and blood.

Well...not for all of us. Protestants don't believe in transubstantiation. If it wasn't symbolic, how could Jesus sit at the table and say "This is my body?" Judiasm/Christianity is rife with metaphors. The Israelite slaves crossing the Jordan into the Promised Land=sinners saved by grace. Baptism=death to self, ressurection to eternal life and adoption as children of the Father. Yeast=sin. Moses raising the staff in the desert=Jesus being crucified. Jonah in the belly of the whale=Jesus in the grave. Marriage=Christ's relationship with the church. Church=Body of Christ.

He made us with senses. We will experience God through all of them. Catholics and Protestants try to understand God through 'speculation'; that is 'reason' and 'deduction'. Orthodox try to know God through 'experience', that is 'feeling' and 'deduction'. We say that we can know God 'noetically' (with the heart). And this is because God is in His essence unknowable, so we know we have no way of ever knowing Him (through reasoning), however we can come to feel God and partake in His warm embrace.

Good stuff!

Why would God create someone only to deprecate and nullify the only entrée to creation this creature has -- reality and the creature's perception of it?

I've absolutely no idea what this means.

I think she means: The only way man has to experience and participate in and make sense of life is through his senses...why then would God mess with that and alter reality through some cosmic slight-of-hand? "Now it's bread...now it's body!"

Animals don't have souls.

Yes they do...but they were not created in the image of God. So there's the difference.

Some times it is permissable to say "I don't know"

Here! Here!

 

[Windy]

So how is "accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior" the moral equivalent of doing good works? Or is it? I mean, suppose I say that I accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior but everyone knows that I am a heinous criminal. I have no intention of stopping my criminal behavior. But I just have to publicly confess Jesus as my savior and zap, I'm saved, right? Maybe I'd be less scornful if I understood this whole thing better. I can see the Catholic viewpoint of requiring good works, because isn't that what Jesus taught? So where do the Protestant religions get from scripture that all you need is to say Jesus is my savior and you're free from all your sins?

Or do I seriously misunderstand all parts of this issue? I'm asking because I really want to know.

The way I understand it geekgrrl; is that in accepting JESUS as your personal saviour; Good works are an outward sign that you have turned away from Sin..and not a way to heaven.
Actions speak louder than words to GOD..
To GOD your words mean nothing because He knows whats in your heart..
Confess it as much as you like...if you dont mean it ....He knows it

 

[Montalban]

Re: Faith without works is dead.

We do believe that the bread and wine really do become His Body and Blood. We take Him into us. For us it actually becomes His flesh and blood.

Well...not for all of us. Protestants don't believe in transubstantiation. If it wasn't symbolic, how could Jesus sit at the table and say "This is my body?"

The same way He could both talk to ‘His’ Father in heaven, and yet be God too. Yes, I understand that you don’t believe in this, this too is a novel idea, invented by man.

Judiasm/Christianity is rife with metaphors. The Israelite slaves crossing the Jordan into the Promised Land=sinners saved by grace. Baptism=death to self, ressurection to eternal life and adoption as children of the Father. Yeast=sin. Moses raising the staff in the desert=Jesus being crucified. Jonah in the belly of the whale=Jesus in the grave. Marriage=Christ's relationship with the church. Church=Body of Christ.

Indeed there are metaphors, however Jesus doesn’t say of the bread and wine “This is like me”. He says “This is”. And in 1 Corinthians 11:17ff, St. Paul specifies the difference between a ‘communal meal’ and the Lord’s Supper.
And on another point I have no reason to doubt that the Israelites literally did cross the Jordan.

He made us with senses. We will experience God through all of them. Catholics and Protestants try to understand God through 'speculation'; that is 'reason' and 'deduction'. Orthodox try to know God through 'experience', that is 'feeling' and 'deduction'. We say that we can know God 'noetically' (with the heart). And this is because God is in His essence unknowable, so we know we have no way of ever knowing Him (through reasoning), however we can come to feel God and partake in His warm embrace.

Good stuff!

Thanks

Why would God create someone only to deprecate and nullify the only entrée to creation this creature has -- reality and the creature's perception of it?

I've absolutely no idea what this means

I think she means: The only way man has to experience and participate in and make sense of life is through his senses...why then would God mess with that and alter reality through some cosmic slight-of-hand? "Now it's bread...now it's body!"

Do you mean like “Jesus is alive, then He’s dead, and then He’s alive again?” It seems like you’re arguing against miracles. (Water into wine, etc)

 

[geekgrrl]

Re: Faith without works is dead.

[...]

Do you mean like “Jesus is alive, then He’s dead, and then He’s alive again?” It seems like you’re arguing against miracles. (Water into wine, etc)

Actually, Rev had no problem at all understanding exactly what I meant, but maybe I was somewhat unclear inasmuch as I wasn't implying temporally alternating activities, such as water into wine and then back again.

Let me try this another way. Where I have problems is with the logic of the need for faith. We are animals all, even humans, and we are born, develop, and perceive according to our instinct and experience. We assume, for the sake of argument, that we are creatures of an omniscient, omnipotent, ubiquitous God who has designed us and the world we inhabit.

So God has given us senses to know the world and a brain capable of reason, in order to deduce that which we cannot directly perceive through our senses. So, while subhuman species have only perception (and, perhaps in primates, the beginnings of ratiocination), man has both perception and reasoning. Everything we need to survive, then, we have been given.

We also have what I'd like to call "natural faith", for example, that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, because it is faith based on repetition of the real. This "natural faith" dervies from our perception of the sun and the inductive reasoning that says that if the sun has risen every day so far as I know, it will most probably rise tomorrow and the day after as well.

This "natural faith" is truly natural because it derives from the parallel application of our two basic tools, perception and reason. If God did nothing more than give us perception and reason, we would develop "natural faith" by ourselves and we would need nothing else to survive and even prosper. By the application of our inductive and deductive reason, we could learn and advance without further attention from the Deity.

But then, along comes the assertion, by either a true agent of God or a poseur seeking control over other people, that we must believe certain things about God, and that if we do not believe them, we are damned for all eternity. Even if we give assent to the demand to "believe", this is hardly "natural faith" -- it's an "artificial faith" or "synthetic faith", because it is fabricated through use of the fear of punishment. It seems illogical to me that God, who is said to be just and loving, finds the need to compel obedience through threats and "artificial faith". It also seems logical to me that if there really were some universal truth beyond "the sun will rise tomorrow", that it would manifest identically in all the diverse civilizations of the world, however advanced, however atavistic, however remote from other societies. A common belief in God does not satisfy that requirement because God is a common device used to explain the unexplainable, the unknowable. That he is also a convenient explanation does not negate the possiblity of his existence being real. But it is human nature to need to explain and understand things, and the concept of God satisfies that need.

So why does God need us to indulge in "synthetic faith" (the believing of certain claims made about God) which is, to us (and probably to him as well), contrived and artificial, and not at all related to "natural faith". Why is he so invested in our choice to believe or not that he (or is it his self-appointed spokesmodels?) threatens us with hellfire and brimstone if we stray from the way?

I don't know for sure who Jesus was, or if he was divine or what, but when I hear him making the same demands for "faith" that fly in the face of all reason and all perception, I have to scratch my head and suspect I've been right all along -- religion is a human invention to control other humans.

 

[Montalban]

Re: Faith without works is dead.

Actually, Rev had no problem at all understanding exactly what I meant, but maybe I was somewhat unclear inasmuch as I wasn't implying temporally alternating activities, such as water into wine and then back again.

Let me try this another way. Where I have problems is with the logic of the need for faith. We are animals all, even humans, and we are born, develop, and perceive according to our instinct and experience. We assume, for the sake of argument, that we are creatures of an omniscient, omnipotent, ubiquitous God who has designed us and the world we inhabit.

So God has given us senses to know the world and a brain capable of reason, in order to deduce that which we cannot directly perceive through our senses. So, while subhuman species have only perception (and, perhaps in primates, the beginnings of ratiocination), man has both perception and reasoning. Everything we need to survive, then, we have been given.

Understand, so far.

We also have what I'd like to call "natural faith", for example, that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, because it is faith based on repetition of the real. This "natural faith" dervies from our perception of the sun and the inductive reasoning that says that if the sun has risen every day so far as I know, it will most probably rise tomorrow and the day after as well.

This "natural faith" is truly natural because it derives from the parallel application of our two basic tools, perception and reason. If God did nothing more than give us perception and reason, we would develop "natural faith" by ourselves and we would need nothing else to survive and even prosper. By the application of our inductive and deductive reason, we could learn and advance without further attention from the Deity.

This is where you lose me. By parallel to the rising and setting sun, you develop 'natural' faith; and you believe that left to ourselves we would come to know God... how? Wouldn't that require having first experienced God, then making assumptions that we would continue to experience God?
How would we come naturally to know God without having experienced God?

But then, along comes the assertion, by either a true agent of God or a poseur seeking control over other people, that we must believe certain things about God, and that if we do not believe them, we are damned for all eternity. Even if we give assent to the demand to "believe", this is hardly "natural faith" -- it's an "artificial faith" or "synthetic faith", because it is fabricated through use of the fear of punishment. It seems illogical to me that God, who is said to be just and loving, finds the need to compel obedience through threats and "artificial faith". It also seems logical to me that if there really were some universal truth beyond "the sun will rise tomorrow", that it would manifest identically in all the diverse civilizations of the world, however advanced, however atavistic, however remote from other societies. A common belief in God does not satisfy that requirement because God is a common device used to explain the unexplainable, the unknowable. That he is also a convenient explanation does not negate the possiblity of his existence being real. But it is human nature to need to explain and understand things, and the concept of God satisfies that need.

I must quibble. What we make, is artifical. Not what God makes. What God makes, is natural. So His intervention in nature is natural... as He's the one who created it. Further, I came to know and love my mother through their interaction with me. Was this 'artificial' love that I felt? Shouldn't she have had nothing to do with me and let my love for her develop 'naturally'?

So why does God need us to indulge in "synthetic faith" (the believing of certain claims made about God) which is, to us (and probably to him as well), contrived and artificial, and not at all related to "natural faith". Why is he so invested in our choice to believe or not that he (or is it his self-appointed spokesmodels?) threatens us with hellfire and brimstone if we stray from the way?

See analogy of the loving parent above; God is the Father of us all. It is 'natural' for Him, having created us, to wish to continue a relationship with us.

I don't know for sure who Jesus was, or if he was divine or what, but when I hear him making the same demands for "faith" that fly in the face of all reason and all perception, I have to scratch my head and suspect I've been right all along -- religion is a human invention to control other humans.

Conclusion: Your parents love was not real, it was just a means of assuring you'd look after them in old age.

 

[Rev.]

Re: Faith without works is dead.

Indeed there are metaphors, however Jesus doesn’t say of the bread and wine “This is like me”. He says “This is”.

He also said of himself "I am the light," "I am the gate," "I am the Good Shepherd." "I am the vine." "I am the Way." "I am the resurrection and the life."

And in 1 Corinthians 11:17ff, St. Paul specifies the difference between a ‘communal meal’ and the Lord’s Supper.

I don't see any reference to communal meal in there. I see Paul teaching that the "Lord's Supper" isn't about satisfying hunger, so if you are hungry eat at home. It is about remembering Jesus' death. Nowhere does Paul say it becomes Jesus' literal body and blood. In fact, he refers to it quite regularly as bread and cup (if we want to be literal here, let's take into account that in this passage 'wine' is never mentioned. So now a cup is Jesus' blood?)

And on another point I have no reason to doubt that the Israelites literally did cross the Jordan.

And Jesus literally had his body broken and his blood shed for our sins...which doesn't make the bread and cup before or since literally his body and blood.

 

[Rev.]

Re: Faith without works is dead.

Let me try this another way. Where I have problems is with the logic of the need for faith. We are animals all, even humans, and we are born, develop, and perceive according to our instinct and experience. We assume, for the sake of argument, that we are creatures of an omniscient, omnipotent, ubiquitous God who has designed us and the world we inhabit.

Nobody came down from on high and said "You must have faith...or else" Seeking God is a "natural faith." The Bible even tells us about those who are "apart from the law" seeking God in nature. People are born naturally knowing there is Someone out there bigger than all of us and we want to know who He is. Have you seen Bruce Almighty? During the part where Bruce's girlfriend has left him and he's trying to win her back, there is a song that plays in the background which says:

"There's a God-shaped hole in all of us,
And the desperate soul is searching.
There's a God-shaped hole in all of us
And it's a hole only He can fill."

But then, along comes the assertion, by either a true agent of God or a poseur seeking control over other people, that we must believe certain things about God, and that if we do not believe them, we are damned for all eternity. Even if we give assent to the demand to "believe", this is hardly "natural faith" -- it's an "artificial faith" or "synthetic faith", because it is fabricated through use of the fear of punishment. It seems illogical to me that God, who is said to be just and loving, finds the need to compel obedience through threats and "artificial faith".

You only know me through here. But no doubt, you have some kind of characature of me in your head. Based on what evidence of me you have seen here, you would conjecture about different things I do, what I must believe, how I would behave in different circumstances.

"Natural faith" had ancient people doing the same thing about God based on what evidence they had available to them. And the conclusions they drew were wrong. We must believe certain things about God wasn't God trying to control us, it was God introducing himself to us so we could relate to Him as He really is and not how we think He is. The Bible is not a third-person codified belief system about God, it is God himself revealing himself to us.

As to your charge that "religion" is "synthetic faith" because it compells behavior through threat of punishment...

You must understand the ancient covenant. Covenants are relationships that are formed for the benefit of both parties. Obedience isn't compelled through threat, it is volunteered ("submission"). Marriage is a covenant relationship that you enter into for the benefits...yet if you violate the terms bad stuff will happen. You don't get married for fear of the consequences of not being married. You are committed for the positive benefits of the relationship. See what I mean?

God made no fewer than seven covenants throughout the Bible. The Covenant with Israel is well known, but apparently very misunderstood. In that (the Mosaic Covenant) the two identified parties are God and the nation of Israel. Israel promised to take YHWH as God, and God promised to take Israel as His people. And Israel would have land, be victorious in battle, have ease and peace, be fruitful etc...all the things that were important to Ancient people. All this would be theirs IF...they remained faithful to God and followed his commands.

So why does God need us to indulge in "synthetic faith" (the believing of certain claims made about God) which is, to us (and probably to him as well), contrived and artificial, and not at all related to "natural faith". Why is he so invested in our choice to believe or not that he (or is it his self-appointed spokesmodels?) threatens us with hellfire and brimstone if we stray from the way?

If you reverse your thinking, you answer your own question. Not "We must be good or we will go to hell." But, "We are going to hell, so we must become good." Hell is already our destination. It is only through belief that we can have eternal life.

I don't know for sure who Jesus was, or if he was divine or what, but when I hear him making the same demands for "faith" that fly in the face of all reason and all perception, I have to scratch my head and suspect I've been right all along -- religion is a human invention to control other humans.

I don't see where Jesus demands anything from us. Did you have anything in particular in mind?

 

[Montalban]

Re: Faith without works is dead.

Indeed there are metaphors, however Jesus doesn’t say of the bread and wine “This is like me”. He says “This is”.

He also said of himself "I am the light," "I am the gate," "I am the Good Shepherd." "I am the vine." "I am the Way." "I am the resurrection and the life."

And He is all of these things.

And in 1 Corinthians 11:17ff, St. Paul specifies the difference between a ‘communal meal’ and the Lord’s Supper. [/quote[

I don't see any reference to communal meal in there. I see Paul teaching that the "Lord's Supper" isn't about satisfying hunger, so if you are hungry eat at home. It is about remembering Jesus' death. Nowhere does Paul say it becomes Jesus' literal body and blood. In fact, he refers to it quite regularly as bread and cup (if we want to be literal here, let's take into account that in this passage 'wine' is never mentioned. So now a cup is Jesus' blood?)

Then you must have missed it. Here's the whole bit first...

1 Corinthians 11

The Lord's Supper
17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, 21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22 Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32 When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.

33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. 34 If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.
And when I come I will give further directions.

Specifically you missed St. Paul saying it's not just a 'meal'
20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat
It is NOT the "Lord's Supper". If you want to 'eat' a meal, do so at home...

21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22 Don't you have homes to eat and drink in?

He repeats that this was 'received' from Jesus
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you:

Then in the same passage he repeats Jesus' words (having already said that it is NOT a 'combative meal'; the Lord's Supper)

The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."

And it has a sacred purpose...
26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

And He again associates it with the actual body and blood of Christ
27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

To sin against the body and blood you drink and eat is to sin against the very body and blood of Christ; they are alike. To sin against one is the same as to sin against the other...

Most telling of all he says you must recognise this when you partake of them...

29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.
If you don't recognise that it's the body and blood of the Lord, you bring judgment upon yourself.

And, he repeats again that it's not just a communal meal...
33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. 34 If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.

Thus, to paraphrase him, for the sake of summery; "If you just want a meal, stay at home. This is something handed to us from Jesus. It is sacred. If you sin agains the bread you sin against His body, they are alike. Let no man partake without realising this.

Against this we have your view. I will endeavour also to introduce later on the writings of other early Christians in order to gain a glimpse into what they thought they were doing.

And on another point I have no reason to doubt that the Israelites literally did cross the Jordan.

And Jesus literally had his body broken and his blood shed for our sins...which doesn't make the bread and cup before or since literally his body and blood.

His words do.

John 6:25ff He says "I am the Bread" and He is comparing Himself to the heavenly manna that the Jews actually did eat.

And He repeats this further on

53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
I don't know how more forcefully Jesus could have stated this then with saying "I tell you the truth... unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood..."

 

[Montalban]

Further sources

If that is not enough we can endeavour to look at how the early church actually worked... And we find it is confirmed by the early church; by writings of those who were taught by the Apostles, and which pre-dates the compilation of the Bible...

St. Ignatius of Antioch
Epistle to the Smyrnaeans
6:2 But mark ye those who hold strange doctrine touching the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us, how that they are contrary to the mind of God. They have no care for love, none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the afflicted, none for the prisoner, none for the hungry or thirsty. They abstain from Eucharist (thanksgiving) and prayer, because they allow not that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-smyrnaeans-lightfoot.html

We take in the bread because it is no longer mere bread...
Epistle to the Ephesians
20:2 especially if the Lord should reveal aught to me. Assemble yourselves together in common, every one of you severally, man by man, in grace, in one faith and one Jesus Christ, who after the flesh was of David's race, who is Son of Man and Son of God, to the end that ye may obey the bishop and presbytery without distraction of mind; breaking one bread, which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote that we should not die but live for ever in Jesus Christ.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-ephesians-lightfoot.html

Justin Martyr, in his First Apology writes...
"CHAPTER LXVI -- OF THE EUCHARIST.
And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

See also CHAP. VIII of
TERTULLIAN
ON THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian16.html

As noted already, the early church was observed by pagans who thought that the Christian church were practicing cannibalism BECAUSE the Christians were partaking of the real flesh and blood of Christ...

(see the article "Why Early Christians Were So Despised" at http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps139.shtml)

Thus the evidence comes from;
The Gospels,
The 1st Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians
other works of the early church
and even from pagans who misunderstood the eating of the flesh and the drinking of the blood of Christ.

Against this is Luther's novel interpretation and your agreement with this.

 

[geekgrrl]

Re: Faith without evidence is dead.

Nobody came down from on high and said "You must have faith...or else" Seeking God is a "natural faith." The Bible even tells us about those who are "apart from the law" seeking God in nature. People are born naturally knowing there is Someone out there bigger than all of us and we want to know who He is. Have you seen Bruce Almighty? [...]

No, I haven't. I'm not much for movies or TV. I prefer to read.

And I don't necessarily agree that "people are born naturally knowing there is..." God or some supreme being "out there bigger than all of us and we want to know who he is". I think that people hear about God from the time they are old enough to learn their parents' language. If they don't hear about God from their parents, then they learn from neighbors, friends, school, TV, bus benches, society in general. I'd love to see a social experiment to see if children who have never heard nor seen mention of God from the second of their birth naturally inquire about the concept of their own volition because the question of Primum Mobile has struck their consciousness as a viable possibility. If children guaranteed never to have been exposed to the concept of or discussion about God somehow invented one on their own, I'd change my thinking about a lot of things.

But the closest we can get is the thought experiment of William Golding's Lord of the Flies, about the growing savagery of a group of formerly well-behaved English (and presumably Christian) schoolboys shipwrecked on an island all by themselves. Here's a group of kids who knew of God, who probably were taken to church every Sunday by their parents or their mentors, who wasted no time in departing from all their prior concepts of God and Biblical teachings as they discovered the benefits of power, control, and enforcement of their artificial social structure on the weakest members. What Golding's novel suggests is that even if we are familiar with God from our childhood, without ever-present enforcement of God and church and the "covenanted" relationship you speak of, we abandon these constraints through our own nature.

You only know me through here. But no doubt, you have some kind of characature of me in your head. Based on what evidence of me you have seen here, you would conjecture about different things I do, what I must believe, how I would behave in different circumstances.

Yes, I have a mental image of both you and Montalban from reading your elegant writings here, but I wouldn't insult either of you by seeking to "caricature" you. That's something that intelligent people do with people they deem idiots, mainly to amuse themselves.

You, Rev, I visualize as a fairly young, red-headed, basically happy mom with more intellect than you may give yourself credit for, and I have no reason not to take you at your word that you are a pastor. You reason for the most part logically, based on what you believe, and you also try consistently to avoid appeals to emotionalism, another trait I respect and admire (and not one shared by many of your calling) -- that alone will buy you a good store of credibility in the most erudite of company.

As for Montalban, I admire your literacy and your erudition. I think you could truly be called "learned". There is compelling evidence that you have spent a lot of time in a seminary, since I don't think most lay people have as profound a knowledge of their religion and its history as you have of yours. If you are not now a priest, monk or other religious, I suspect you studied to be one at one time. You also seem stable, and as comfortable with your faith as with old shoes; you shrug off contumely and vituperation like a duck sheds water from its back. You have a profound store of knowledge such as I have seen in only a few very distinguished professors. What are you doing with all that knowledge, if I may ask?

I also really am unconcerned about evaluating either of you in the "different circumstances" you (Rev) talk about, since I only know you by your words here in this venue.

I'm going to have to continue this response later; sometimes I wish I could spend all day with no other obligations...

 

[Montalban]

Nobody came down from on high and said "You must have faith...or else" Seeking God is a "natural faith." The Bible even tells us about those who are "apart from the law" seeking God in nature. People are born naturally knowing there is Someone out there bigger than all of us and we want to know who He is.

And I don't necessarily agree that "people are born naturally knowing there is..." God or some supreme being "out there bigger than all of us and we want to know who he is".

I agree with Rev here, it is in out nature to yearn for a return to Him.

I think that people hear about God from the time they are old enough to learn their parents' language.

Then this is a problem for you with regards 'first cause'. If I only believe in God because I heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from someone etc, then this would go on forever. Someone (like Adam) knew God. The Apostles knew God. I know God, though not as well as either of them through the experience of God.

You only know me through here. But no doubt, you have some kind of caricature of me in your head. Based on what evidence of me you have seen here, you would conjecture about different things I do, what I must believe, how I would behave in different circumstances.

Yes, I have a mental image of both you and Montalban from reading your elegant writings here, but I wouldn't insult either of you by seeking to "caricature" you. That's something that intelligent people do with people they deem idiots, mainly to amuse themselves.

I look a lot like the picture/icon !

As for Montalban, I admire your literacy and your erudition. I think you could truly be called "learned". There is compelling evidence that you have spent a lot of time in a seminary, since I don't think most lay people have as profound a knowledge of their religion and its history as you have of yours. If you are not now a priest, monk or other religious, I suspect you studied to be one at one time. You also seem stable, and as comfortable with your faith as with old shoes; you shrug off contumely and vituperation like a duck sheds water from its back. You have a profound store of knowledge such as I have seen in only a few very distinguished professors. What are you doing with all that knowledge, if I may ask?

Thank you very very much for that glowing (conjectural) biography.

I never attended a seminary. I have not the moral-fibre for priesthood.



What do I do with the knowledge? Well I discuss things on-line like this in order to both

a) sharpen my own knowledge (I have learnt so very much in the past two years of on-line debate)

and

b) to combat the irreligious/anti-Christians and to present a case for the Orthodox Church on many matters



I also argue with people at work when such matters arise - which does happen occasionally.



But getting back to the topic at hand, I must reiterate I agree with Rev. I read about a year ago "God's Revelation to the Human Heart" by the late Fr. Seraphim Rose and agree that it is in our nature to look for God. It is as natural as the need for humans to long for companionship.

 

[geekgrrl]

Re: Oops, forgot the Muslims, did we...?

He also said of himself "I am the light," "I am the gate," "I am the Good Shepherd." "I am the vine." "I am the Way." "I am the resurrection and the life."

I don't see any reference to communal meal in there. I see Paul teaching that the "Lord's Supper" isn't about satisfying hunger, so if you are hungry eat at home. It is about remembering Jesus' death. Nowhere does Paul say it becomes Jesus' literal body and blood. In fact, he refers to it quite regularly as bread and cup (if we want to be literal here, let's take into account that in this passage 'wine' is never mentioned. So now a cup is Jesus' blood?)

And Jesus literally had his body broken and his blood shed for our sins...which doesn't make the bread and cup before or since literally his body and blood.

Why didn't his sacrifice convince the Muslims? If it was so important for everyone in the world to worship him, why didn't Jesus deal separately with all cultures, especially the large Muslim population (post Muhammad, preferably, in order to get the last word)?

The Mormons of Utah claim that Jesus made a side trip to early America to deal with the native population. (I don't know what they offer as proof.) I've never heard anyone else anywhere claim that Jesus paid them a visit.

Since Jesus apparently didn't see fit to enlighten the post-Muhammad Muslims, they apparently didn't learn virtues like turning the other cheek. In fact, throughout their history, they've shown themselves quite a bloodthirsty lot, with the world's most intolerant faith of all the majors, the most oppressive to women and non-believers. As we've seen, they relish sawing off the heads of the defenseless and innocent with dull knives. And they think themselves truly brave warriors of God when they're slaughtering women and children and old men. (They turn tail and run from armed soldiers.) And Jesus never thought these barbarians were worth a visit, or at least a little special attention?

 

[geekgrrl]

[...]

Then this is a problem for you with regards 'first cause'. If I only believe in God because I heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from someone etc, then this would go on forever. Someone (like Adam) knew God. The Apostles knew God. I know God, though not as well as either of them through the experience of God.

For all the disdain I have for the human establishment of religion, I myself believe in God (in the deistic sense), and I don't presume to know enough about "him" (for simplicity, I follow the common usage, not that I know or care whether God has a gender) to attempt to describe "his" characteristics except indirectly, via that which I can see -- the real, physical world.

Personally, for myself, I don't consider my understanding of the concept of God as an "experience of God". I've never experienced God. I don't know God. I don't worship God outside of an occasional expression of amazement at extraordinarily beautiful scenery, for example, whispered under my breath. I find public worship hypocritical at the least and obscene pomposity at the worst. I have no reason to believe that the God I conceive of with my limited intelligence is a God who has any reason to be concerned with my existence. He gives us the tools we need to reproduce ourselves and think well enough to build our civilizations and we may as well be an glass-enclosed ant colony on a shelf in his den.

Our universe is theoretically bounded by an origin in time and space, even if we cannot point to some place in some 4-dimensional coordinate system and say, "This is where it all started." How many more universes contain it? How many more universes does it contain? It is not, therefore, unreasonable to suppose that our existence is multi-planar, that we inhabit (simultaneously or serially) numerous planes of existence, and we can describe a state for each of them.

I personally suspect (not believe) that we do persist in some fashion, that we inhabit our bodies as a shell, and that whenever we choose to incarnate, we can do so in any time or place because the existential plane onto which we can jump is like an assembly-line conveyor belt whose coordinates are in space, moving through time, repeating, and therefore always available. So, as an individual, I can "jump" onto the conveyor belt the next time I find myself "above" it (i.e., having discarded a physical body) and enter another existence, say, in medieval India or 23rd-Century Ethiopia, or back in prehistory, or not even on this world, but perhaps on some other. Perhaps I am the way the universe (God) knows itself, and I am how God diversifies. Again, I don't know God, but I can speculate.

If God is eternal, immanent principle, what can he learn? It might seem a paradox, but an omniscient, omnipotent God cannot logically learn anything if he is the creator of all. But he can spin off parts of himself with the traits of intelligent but finite creatures who can learn. And it is through us that God learns, and knows himself. Maybe that's what Jesus was trying to tell us.

In our existences here, in my opinion, we are like two children who sleep in bunk beds -- the child on the top looks through the skylight and sees the stars and the heavens, and even "God". The child in the bottom bunk cannot see anything except the bottom of the top child's mattress. But the bottom kid can hear, if not see, the kid on top. They can talk to each other. But the only thing the kid on the bottom knows of the stars is what the kid on the top tells him.

In my understanding, the kid on the top is our higher selves, what we understand as God, what we pray to, the one to whom we cry for help when we are in trouble. Our higher self is part of the plenum and it monitors or supervises the incarnated part of ourselves. The conscious human part of our eternal existence, the part that is here to learn, is discardable. Our upper self decides when to discard the body, withdraw that other part of him/herself, and move on to some new experience. Sometimes, if we are "tuned in" to this higher self, we can communicate with it. Each person, each being, even the lowest-order animal, has a higher self which it can use to communicate with the higher self of any other being. I see that as the origin of "telepathy" and knowledge at a distance of physically unknowable events. Those who are tuned into their higher self can tap into this knowledge. Most people are too busy to try this. Other people, even animals, may send us messages explicitly or implicitly, but they must travel via the higher self, and even if two higher selves communicate with one another, the lower being will not receive the message if he or she is not able to communicate with his or her higher self. That we are not in direct communication during all waking consciousness is to prevent information overload which the lower being (human) could not handle. This is how I explain the documented but unexplained phenomena by which people exhibit knowledge of unknowable people or events, correctly predict unguessable events, and know that a loved one is in danger (for example).

Note that all of this is based on conjecture, and absolutely none of this should ever be construed as a religious belief. It is simply my personal attempt to apply the logic we know to a universe we don't.

That's my "belief system" in a nutshell. Not very articulated or profound. Not very mysterious. I've never mentioned it to a single person before. I don't know why I posted it here, but maybe just to see what sort of ridicule it would attract.

Thank you very very much for that glowing (conjectural) biography.

I never attended a seminary. I have not the moral-fibre for priesthood.

What do I do with the knowledge? Well I discuss things on-line like this in order to both

a) sharpen my own knowledge (I have learnt so very much in the past two years of on-line debate)

and

b) to combat the irreligious/anti-Christians and to present a case for the Orthodox Church on many matters

I also argue with people at work when such matters arise - which does happen occasionally.

You're lucky (maybe) that you can debate religion and politics at work. It's highly frowned on here in the U.S.

You're a good apologist for your faith and the Orthodox Church. But the Orthodox Church is not well known here in the U.S. I say that in the sense that it doesn't get a lot of "press". Nobody really knows anything about it. Catholicism and the Southern evangelical cults get all the press these days. Maybe what you need is a marketing department. That's how you get your message across in this country.

You realize by now, I'm sure, that I am one of those irreligious types. I'm not "anti-Christian" per se. I'm more anti-religion in general. Curious about it, yes. Likely to succumb to belief in it, no. I am not about to ridicule or make light of anyone else's beliefs, however, because I also believe in the right to believe and worship (or not) as one sees fit. What I ridicule and skewer at every opportunity are the criminal hypocrites, the Pat Robertsons and James Dobsons of this world, who pervert religion by linking it to a particular political point of view, who take advantage of human credulity to get rich and powerful off of the well-intentioned belief of well-meaning individuals.

But getting back to the topic at hand, I must reiterate I agree with Rev. I read about a year ago "God's Revelation to the Human Heart" by the late Fr. Seraphim Rose and agree that it is in our nature to look for God. It is as natural as the need for humans to long for companionship.

I think the jury's still out on that last sentence. But if I can find the book you cited, maybe I'll check it out.

 

[Montalban]

Re: Oops, forgot the Muslims, did we...?

Why didn't his sacrifice convince the Muslims?

That is historically erroneuos, as well as illogical.
Muslims didn't exist in the time of Jesus, therefore they couldn't have been convinced by Him. However even if you mean Muslims AFTER it is still illogical to say that an idea is false, because someone doesn't believe in it.
There are still people who believe the world is flat. The mere fact that they exist does not negate the various sciences and scientific methods that show otherwise.

If it was so important for everyone in the world to worship him, why didn't Jesus deal separately with all cultures, especially the large Muslim population (post Muhammad, preferably, in order to get the last word)?

Then one can argue against Muhammed simply by the emergence of people who consign him to one of many prophets such as the Bah'ai.

The Mormons of Utah claim that Jesus made a side trip to early America to deal with the native population. (I don't know what they offer as proof.) I've never heard anyone else anywhere claim that Jesus paid them a visit.

This is a continuation of the 'flat-earthers' idea stated above.
Granted that the message of Jesus is more important, but both the message of Jesus is widespread, people aren't condemned for never hearing Him and there will always be people who don't believe Him, because of Free Will.

Since Jesus apparently didn't see fit to enlighten the post-Muhammad Muslims, they apparently didn't learn virtues like turning the other cheek. In fact, throughout their history, they've shown themselves quite a bloodthirsty lot, with the world's most intolerant faith of all the majors, the most oppressive to women and non-believers. As we've seen, they relish sawing off the heads of the defenseless and innocent with dull knives. And they think themselves truly brave warriors of God when they're slaughtering women and children and old men. (They turn tail and run from armed soldiers.) And Jesus never thought these barbarians were worth a visit, or at least a little special attention?

You seem to have a theory to falsify Jesus by the fact that He doesn't conform to your own judgment of what you believe to be the ultimum means of bringing about His message; ignoring the several objections stated above, and the fact that Christianity IS the most wide-spread, and followed faith; it is thus pretty well a good model.

 

[Montalban]

For all the disdain I have for the human establishment of religion, I myself believe in God (in the deistic sense), and I don't presume to know enough about "him" (for simplicity, I follow the common usage, not that I know or care whether God has a gender) to attempt to describe "his" characteristics except indirectly, via that which I can see -- the real, physical world.

So you must only know about Him (according to your own theory) by being told about Him

If God is eternal, immanent principle, what can he learn? It might seem a paradox, but an omniscient, omnipotent God cannot logically learn anything if he is the creator of all. But he can spin off parts of himself with the traits of intelligent but finite creatures who can learn. And it is through us that God learns, and knows himself. Maybe that's what Jesus was trying to tell us.

Why does He need to learn?

In our existences here, in my opinion, we are like two children who sleep in bunk beds -- the child on the top looks through the skylight and sees the stars and the heavens, and even "God". The child in the bottom bunk cannot see anything except the bottom of the top child's mattress. But the bottom kid can hear, if not see, the kid on top. They can talk to each other. But the only thing the kid on the bottom knows of the stars is what the kid on the top tells him.

We might also learn to trust the kid on top. And know that his observations are correct.
"When we read in Bouchet about miracles associated with the relics of Saint Hilary we can shrug it off: His right to be believed is not great enough to take away our freedom to challenge him. But to go on from there and condemn all similar accounts seems to me to be impudent in the extreme. Such a great saint as Augustine swears that he saw: a blind child restored to sight by the relics of Saint Gervaise and Saint Protasius at Milan; a woman in Carthage cured of a cancer by the sign of the cross made by a woman who had just been baptised; his close friend Hesperius driving off devils (who were infesting his house) by using a little soil taken from the sepulchre of our Lord, and that same soil, borne into the Church, suddenly curing a paralytic; a woman who, having touched the reliquary of Saint Stephen with a posy of flowers during a procession, rubbed her eyes with them afterwards and recovered her sight which she had recently lost... What are we to accuse him of - hum and the two holy bishops, Aurelius and Maximinus, whom he calls on as witnesses? Is it of ignorance, simple-mindedness, credulity, deliberate deception or imposture? .... 'Qui, ut rationem mullan afferent, ipsa auhtoritate me frangerent (Why, even if they gave no reasons, they would convince me by their very authority)
Michel de Montaigne in "That it is madness to judge the true and the false from our own capacities"

Montaigne (1993), "The Essays: A Selection", Penguin Classics

Note that all of this is based on conjecture, and absolutely none of this should ever be construed as a religious belief. It is simply my personal attempt to apply the logic we know to a universe we don't.

It is very western. I've pointed out the difference between the Orthodox and the Catholic-Protestant approaches. One is based on experience, the other on speculation.
I think Spock said "Logic suggests that logic need not apply in this situation".

That's my "belief system" in a nutshell. Not very articulated or profound. Not very mysterious. I've never mentioned it to a single person before. I don't know why I posted it here, but maybe just to see what sort of ridicule it would attract.

I hope you don't find me to harsh a critic.

You're lucky (maybe) that you can debate religion and politics at work. It's highly frowned on here in the U.S.

I'm a public servant, and they're not likely to sack me (it's near impossible here ), as long as I don't go over-board. People at work have just come to expect this of me.

You're a good apologist for your faith and the Orthodox Church. But the Orthodox Church is not well known here in the U.S. I say that in the sense that it doesn't get a lot of "press". Nobody really knows anything about it. Catholicism and the Southern evangelical cults get all the press these days. Maybe what you need is a marketing department. That's how you get your message across in this country.

I understand the bad PR system we have. I myself have had trouble with the church in regards to my conversion because the church has become more inward looking than it should; especially in the west where there are cultural clique churches; Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox etc instead of "The Orthodox Church in Australia" - which is how historically it should have developed here.
I still find other difficulties. I started with the Antiochian Orthodox church because they stated that they had English language services. More recently they got a new priest out from Lebanon who speaks very poor English and I couldn't follow what he was saying.

You realize by now, I'm sure, that I am one of those irreligious types. I'm not "anti-Christian" per se. I'm more anti-religion in general. Curious about it, yes. Likely to succumb to belief in it, no. I am not about to ridicule or make light of anyone else's beliefs, however, because I also believe in the right to believe and worship (or not) as one sees fit. What I ridicule and skewer at every opportunity are the criminal hypocrites, the Pat Robertsons and James Dobsons of this world, who pervert religion by linking it to a particular political point of view, who take advantage of human credulity to get rich and powerful off of the well-intentioned belief of well-meaning individuals.

Again we have had this problem in the Orthodox Church. During the Soviet era church appointments were made that were pro-government. The Russian church split into the Russian Orthodox Church, and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR). They have not re-joined.
This is not new; the Ecumenical Patriarch must be a Turkish citizen. Very few patriarchs in Constantinople (now Istanbul) have died peacefully.
However in saying all that we never placed the same reverence for one person as has the Roman church.
All our problems seem to be administrative. And this can be enough to keep people away. As well, for some westerners who demand answers to the infinite degree, we don't oblige; often saying "It's a mystery" and leaving it at that.

But getting back to the topic at hand, I must reiterate I agree with Rev. I read about a year ago "God's Revelation to the Human Heart" by the late Fr. Seraphim Rose and agree that it is in our nature to look for God. It is as natural as the need for humans to long for companionship.

I think the jury's still out on that last sentence. But if I can find the book you cited, maybe I'll check it out.

It's short, not very expensive, available at many places; Amazon et al.

 

[geekgrrl]

So you must only know about Him (according to your own theory) by being told about Him.

Why does He need to learn?

Yes, I was told about God, same as you and most other people, sometime during their early childhood.

As for why God "needs to learn", it's not so much that he needs to, more that he wants to experience his creation as his creatures see it. What do you do for novelty, for new experience, when you've been it all and done it all? Be what you haven't been and do what you haven't done. But if you're God, how do you do that? Well, create someone through whose perception you can experience things as if for the first time. Why can't God create an agent to go and report back how things look and feel from a non-omniscient, non-omnipotent, non-ubiquitous perspective? How do we know, after all, that God doesn't get bored, if he's everything that our religionists say he is?

We might also learn to trust the kid on top. And know that his observations are correct.

I'd have thought that you would write, "And have faith that his observations are correct." We're not debating knowledge, remember? We're debating faith, and the need for it.

"When we read in Bouchet about miracles associated with the relics of Saint Hilary we can shrug it off: His right to be believed is not great enough to take away our freedom to challenge him. But to go on from there and condemn all similar accounts seems to me to be impudent in the extreme. Such a great saint as Augustine swears that he saw: a blind child restored to sight by the relics of Saint Gervaise and Saint Protasius at Milan... What are we to accuse him of - him and the two holy bishops, Aurelius and Maximinus, whom he calls on as witnesses? Is it of ignorance, simple-mindedness, credulity, deliberate deception or imposture? .... 'Qui, ut rationem mullan afferent, ipsa auhtoritate me frangerent (Why, even if they gave no reasons, they would convince me by their very authority)
Michel de Montaigne in "That it is madness to judge the true and the false from our own capacities"

Montaigne (1993), "The Essays: A Selection", Penguin Classics

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make in citing the preceding. But to the extent that I "get it", let me say that each of us has not only the right to challenge claims of miracles, but the obligation to do so. One of the outgrowths of perception + reason is what is best simply referred to as a "bullsh*t meter". We have such a meter built in for a reason. We survive best (and nations stay free for the longest period of time) when we refuse to believe any claims of supernatural phenomena on their face, without abundant substantiation in the real world.

Your citation above seems to suggest that appeals to authority are the equivalent of credible evidence and scientfic substantiation. In academia, you can cite authorities who have become such because they have done substantial real-world research which has been peer-reviewed before their work has been deemed worthy of addition to the body of scientific knowledge. But when you cite masters of the church, religionists, people of faith, as authorities to certify the validity of supernatural events claimed to have happened in the real world, the authority behind these citations vanishes, because their expertise is acknowledged to be in the realm of faith, and they are not seen as qualified investigators of real-world phenomena.

BTW, just FYI, I don't think Monsieur de Montaigne was around in 1993...

Michel Eyquem de Montaigne (February 28, 1533 – September 13, 1592) was an influential French Renaissance writer, generally considered to be the inventor of the personal essay. In his main work, the Essays, unprecedented in its candidness and personal flavor, he takes mankind and especially himself as the object of study. He is generally considered to be a Skeptic and a Humanist.

[...]

I understand the bad PR system we have. I myself have had trouble with the church in regards to my conversion because the church has become more inward looking than it should; especially in the west where there are cultural clique churches; Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox etc instead of "The Orthodox Church in Australia" - which is how historically it should have developed here. I still find other difficulties. I started with the Antiochian Orthodox church because they stated that they had English language services. More recently they got a new priest out from Lebanon who speaks very poor English and I couldn't follow what he was saying.

Again we have had this problem in the Orthodox Church. During the Soviet era church appointments were made that were pro-government. The Russian church split into the Russian Orthodox Church, and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR). They have not re-joined.
This is not new; the Ecumenical Patriarch must be a Turkish citizen. Very few patriarchs in Constantinople (now Istanbul) have died peacefully.
However in saying all that we never placed the same reverence for one person as has the Roman church. All our problems seem to be administrative. And this can be enough to keep people away. As well, for some westerners who demand answers to the infinite degree, we don't oblige; often saying "It's a mystery" and leaving it at that.

[...]

I think I just realized why the Orthodox Church doesn't sell well outside of the Near and Middle East, eastern Europe, and Russia. The following sentence (which you wrote above) is revelatory in the extreme: the Ecumenical Patriarch must be a Turkish citizen.

That's a killer right there. At least the pope is usually a European, and part of a culture we Americans share with Europe (because, for the majority of us, our ancestors come from there). But Turkey? Not even the pope has to be a European. Africans and South Americans were in the race during the recent papal election. If your patriarch has to be Turkish, that leaves out everyone else in the whole world. Talk about parochial!

To be bluntly honest, Turkey is not a country anyone here in the U.S. knows or cares much about. I'm not trying to be offensive or rude, just forthright. The only time we hear about Turkey is when a Westerner gets thrown into prison there after being accused of what would be some minor drug offense in the U.S. And Turkey, being a primarily Muslim nation, has a bad image here, even though Bush was kissing up to the Turks for a while back in late 2002 and early 2003 when he was trying to persuade their government to let the U.S. military use their country as a staging area for the invasion of Iraq. So, trying to convince Westerners that they should adopt a Turkish spin on a Christian dogma from a third-world majority-Muslim country with a poor record on human rights (although they're trying to clean up their act to earn membership in the European Union) is a long shot at best. Maybe a good product manager would substitute the terms "Byzantium" or "Byzantine" for Turkey or Turkish, but most of us know that the Byzantium of Constantine is now Turkey. It'll never fly. We don't share the same culture, and we never will. Nice try, though.

BTW, I'm not trying to demoralize you or shoot you down. Reality will do that all by itself without any help from me.