Quote: (02-21-2018 04:11 PM)debeguiled Wrote:
Much as I would love to debate you, it goes against the point I am making, so I will have to decline.
I can respect that.
Quote: (02-21-2018 04:27 PM)Ranch Hand Wrote:
^^ this series of responses delivers.
I'm traveling a lot til next week, so forgive broken/incomplete response.
RG - I am unaware of the energy/essence dialogue you mentioned. Can you fill me in a bit. I am aware of the Filioque matter; just haven't developed meaningful thought on it yet.
Ironically I will link you to a Jay Dyer video, he gives a really good breakdown and it is worth the hour listen:
For a very brief layman's description of the essence-energy distinction:
-Eastern theology (and I would contend the first 1000 years of Christendom period) believes that God is mysterious and ultimately unknowable. We can never know God's Essence. We can never attribute any traits to God in a positive fashion, but rather we can say what God is not. This is called apophatic or negative theology.
-But we can partake in God's uncreated Energies. By participating in God's uncreated Energies we can through a process called theosis (which involves purification, fasting, noetic prayer, and illumination) become partakers in the Glory of God and become gods by Grace.
-The East maintains that man can have a direct connection to God vis a vis Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit through a part of our soul called the nous.
-Western theology (originating in part through Augustine, but really picking up with Thomas Aquinas) posits Absolute Divine Simplicity and that there is no distinction between God's Essence and His Energies.
-But "since no man has seen God" this has led to the idea of created grace and has essentially cut mankind off from connection with God.
-Western theology has also pivoted away from the therapeutic outlook on Christ's teachings, sin, and forgiveness to a more punitive view of sin and forgiveness which has led to a lot of distortions that we see in Western Christian denominations.
Quote:Quote:
Debeguiled - I am interested in Orthodoxy but not interested in descending into infinitely tighter distinctions/separations of Christianity (you appear to have similar sentiment). Christian denominations seem to take particular pride in such debates. It is unfortunate and has led to a fractured church - more exploitable by referenced heretical/cult sects as well as clearly hostile outside religions.
Debeguiled/Samseau -
When does Orthodoxy church tend to the "faith, hope, Love" type biblical exposition? I appreciate the sermon/homily but understand the liturgy kind of limits an in-Depth pitch one finds in better Churchian experience. Is biblical
Immersion tended in group studies, etc.? Just curious of Orthodoxy approach to personal improvement - bible style.
Samseau - what painting/artist is that? Thanks for the Luke 9 verse - Very pertinent and Central to church unity I suspect (lower case catholic, universal) church.
Question to any men here practicing Orthodoxy: did you get here by ethnic heritage or was this a "return to basics" after plowing endless thot-thickets and resultant bimbo-burnout (I know that condition is unfathomable to many deservedly-respected RvF brothers, but it does occasionally exist).
I need to reread this thread. I've skimmed before, but there is much to digest here.
I know you've addressed some of these questions to other posters but I would like to endeavor some answers. I would say that Orthodoxy has the most unity of faith and has the advantage of 2000 years of unbroken tradition, teaching, and faith. What Christ taught to the Apostles and the very first Christians practiced is what the Orthodox Church practices and teaches today (with some obvious evolutions in liturgy and Church governance). But remember, if you are expecting perfection you are going to be disappointed. The Church is best thought of as a hospital for sinners, so it is full of men who are seeking a cure. Not perfect men.
As for the Orthodox approach to personal improvement...it is immense. The requirements for fasting during Lent for instance is the standard that was developed out of the monasteries. Orthodoxy doesn't make a distinction between the expectations for monastic life and laity when it comes to fasting. Essentially all meat and dairy products are restricted during the 40 days of Lent.
Now, the Orthodox approach to fasting is different than the Catholic idea. In Catholicism the requirements are strictly enforced under the penalty of sin and very rigidly laid out. Orthodoxy conceives of fasting for one as not just pertaining to food, but a more holistic view of life improvement. Secondly, we don't fast for the sake of fasting. We fast to purify ourselves to help along the path of theosis. Fasting is part of the curative prescription laid out by the Church. If you're new to Orthodoxy and don't live in an Orthodox family the idea of following the fasting rules to the letter is pretty unrealistic and no one, not a priest, not a bishop, would advise you to do that.
Most homilies are pretty brief, but there are an endless volume of good Orthodox books to read.
I arrived to Orthodoxy by exhausting the Western Christian traditions and burning myself out in Catholicism. I was really ready to write off Christianity until I discovered Orthodoxy. I don't really consider Orthodoxy to be "Christian" at least not in modern Western conception of that term. It is a different religion to me than what you find in the average Catholic parish and any Protestant denomination.