for theo: questions about Orthodoxy

[runamokmonk]

I went through a period of reading about the EO churches because I liked a lot of what they had to say and especially some of their ideas on soteriology. And I have already read one of theognosis's links-possibly from another thread- about the book, Christ the Eternal Tao, which is mostly a great book. But I was totally turned off by what I percieved as religious arrogance from the EO churches. Some of it came across as what seemed to me the scapegoating of the Western Christian for environmental pollution, capitalism, to dadaist art (And I am someone who takes issue with a lot of Western Christian theology, although not all of course, some is great). After reading enough of this I wondered if Russia had been in the West would Western Christians been at least partially implicated for the reaction of anti-religious Soviet atheism?


What about ortho-praxis? I can't help of how Jesus treated the Samaritan woman. Or, the time when Jesus was asked how to inherit eternal life, Jesus told the parable of the heretical Good Samaritan. Maybe what is Orthodox is Love and becoming that love or, one with Love/Logos, not believeing all the right things or, saying all the right and precise words, or being a part of the right religion.




"On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?" He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live." But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"

In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn in Jericho and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'

"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"

The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."
New International Version


There's a lot I can and have learned from the EO Churches. But I think they can learn from others too.

[Metacrock]

good thoguhts runamuck. I can't answer it, but good thoughts. Lattely I've begun to think a lot about how meaningless words are. I am inclined to care less about doctrine and more about action. And art. I feel that art is some kind of gateway to the spirit and doesn't require any sort of doctrinal correctness.

[Theognosis]

The Fall corrupted, but did not nullify, the goodness of Creation.

The death and decay we see NOW can't be good, or at the very least not as good as when God created the universe. That's why matter needs to be glorified together with our bodies.

]Heh. What can I say to that? That wasn't even Webster's, but my own, off-the-cuff statement of what I understood the word to mean. What do the Fathers say "carnal" means?

It's nothing specific, really. Words can mean a thousand things to people, that's what I meant.

]What do the Fathers say "carnal" means?

The writings are diverse, and there's not one definition.

]I don't advocate a Christian actually losing control of themselves in worship.

That's my point all along.

]We differ on what is appropriate expression of emotion in worship.

Yes.

]I'm simply not that compartmentalized. This is partly a male-female difference, I believe. What I contemplate affects my emotions. And if thinking of the Cross during worship in church moves me to tears, I'm not going to sit there fighting them back. To me, that would be dishonest-- like putting on a facade.

A tear or two in the eye is not the same as "running and jumping about." I believe you have unnecessarily dragged this discussion to cover subtle emotional responses.

]If I can be moved to weeping by things of this earth, how much more, then, for things of Heaven? When I contemplate the Cross, am I to feel nothing?

It's the way you react that makes you mature, not what you feel per se.

Please recall what I said:

To the Orthodox, the proper response would be to keep silent and kneel down with humility. We should ask for mercy, not glorify ourselves; be spiritual, not emotional.

]Ok, I guess I'm a heretic. Which leads me to ask, what is your view on heresy? Can heretics go to heaven?

We don't judge.

]I know you said you believe God can reveal Himself to all peoples. But I wonder-- does one have to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy to be saved?

It is the Orthodox Church that produced, transmitted and preserved the Bible you're reading now. If the you think the Bible is enough for one to be saved, how much more if one receives the complete package?

]Or will God save all who trust Jesus and turn from their sins to follow Him, regardless of whatever other kinds of "heresy" they commit?

I invite you to study heresy, from Arianism to Iconoclasm.

]I hold to this view. (To me, nothing is "heresy" but not believing in the fundamental, definitive basics, like the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atonement, etc.)

Orthodoxy fought for all those things.

]If you don't hold this view, then in your mind I am lost unless I convert to your religion.

Please don't get the impression that I'm trying to convert anybody in this board. That is not my intention.

To tell you the truth, I was forced to join this thread because Meta put my name and church on the title. I had no choice, you see.

]As I am not going to do that, it makes me sad that you feel that way, when I regard you as a brother in Christ.

We're all brothers. I pray for the salvation of all people, including the devil himself.

](Even if kissing the feet of statues does seem a little weird to me. )

The Orthodox doesn't have statues, only icons.

Still, it's quite fitting that you have mentioned this!

http://www.newsfinder.org/site/more/byz ... onography/

Upon examining a Byzantine icon one can see a likeness not of an animate but a deified prototype, an image (conventional, or course) not of flesh, but of flesh transfigured, radiant with Divine Light. It is beauty and glory, represented by material means and visible in the icon to physical eyes. Consequently, everything, which reminds one of human flesh, is contrary to the very nature of the icon. A temporal portrait of a Saint cannot be an icon because it reflects not his transfigured but his ordinary, carnal state. It is indeed this difference of the icon that sets it apart from all forms of pictorial art.

Liturgical Art is not only our offering to God, but also God’s descent into our midst, one of the forms in which is accomplished the meeting of God with man, of grace with nature, eternity with time. The meaning of church art, and in particular of the icon, is that it transmits, or rather testifies visually to the reality of God and of the world, of grace and of nature. Thus, through the icon, as through the Holy Scriptures we not only learn about God, but also know God.

The icon never strives to stir the emotions of the faithful. Its task is not to provoke in them natural human emotion, but to guide every emotion as well as the reason and all the other faculties of human nature on the way toward transfiguration. Sanctity not only has a personal, but also a general human as well as a cosmic significance. Therefore, the visible world represented in the icon changes, becomes the image of the future unity of the whole creation - The Kingdom of the Holy Spirit. All that is depicted in the icon reflects not the disorder of our sinful world, but Divine Order, peace, a realm governed not by earthly logic, not by human morality, but by Divine Grace. This is why what we see in the icon is so unlike what we see in ordinary life.

Thus, the icon is both the way and the means; it is prayer itself.

[Theognosis]

But I was totally turned off by what I percieved as religious arrogance from the EO churches. Some of it came across as what seemed to me the scapegoating of the Western Christian for environmental pollution, capitalism, to dadaist art (And I am someone who takes issue with a lot of Western Christian theology, although not all of course, some is great).

Orthodoxy is attacking Secularism at all fronts because of trauma. You have to understand that persecution is still fresh in the minds of Russians, Greeks, Romanians, Armenians, Serbians, etc. Their suffering has not been publicized in Hollywood, so most in the west have no idea how the Orthodox Christians have suffered under the Turks, Bolsheviks, Communists, Muslims and even the Roman Catholics in the 20th century.

At any rate, I pray that Orthodoxy recovers from the pain of the most recent past and become active once again in preaching the good news to all nations.

Also, if it is of consolation to you, I have regained my respect for Roman Catholicism after my conversion to Orthodoxy (Yes, I'm a former Catholic... ironic, isn't it?). More importantly, I have been told by my priest that we will witness the restoration of communion between Rome and Constantinople in this lifetime.

After reading enough of this I wondered if Russia had been in the West would Western Christians been at least partially implicated for the reaction of anti-religious Soviet atheism?

For the sake of being politically correct, I will not comment on that.

What about ortho-praxis? I can't help of how Jesus treated the Samaritan woman. Or, the time when Jesus was asked how to inherit eternal life, Jesus told the parable of the heretical Good Samaritan. Maybe what is Orthodox is Love and becoming that love or, one with Love/Logos, not believeing all the right things or, saying all the right and precise words, or being a part of the right religion.

I don't take that parable of the Good Samaritan literally. In fact, I have a different interpretation. The person who was hurt (=scourged/crucified) on his way from Jerusalem (=messiah) to Jericho (=conquest) is Jesus Christ himself. The people who ignored him represent the other religions, whereas the Samaritan represents the Orthodox Church that served him.

When interpeted in this manner, Ortho-praxis should make sense.

[Metacrock]

talking to your self now? It looks like you are answering your own posts.

[Theognosis]

talking to your self now? It looks like you are answering your own posts.

There. I've edited the last two posts and added that "quote is equal to" thing.

[runamokmonk]

runamokmonk wrote:
After reading enough of this I wondered if Russia had been in the West would Western Christians been at least partially implicated for the reaction of anti-religious Soviet atheism?

For the sake of being politically correct, I will not comment on that.

I am not sure what you mean? Are you saying you'd rather not comment for you wouldn't say something nice? Members of the Eastern Church often speak against Papal-Caesarism and say that the Protestant reformation was a reaction against the Papal excesses by making each individual Christian a pope. I found they extrapolate many Western and world problems with western Christian Instutuons and theology. Which, to a degree, I have no problem with doing. My problem is that they don't do it with themselves nearly as much as they point the finger which rubbed me the wrong way.

They champion the idea that there was a sort of religious conformity in the east by pointing out thet there was no Protestant reformation there. But the Insitituion of the Churches in the east have a tendency to align themselves with the state and this is the flip side of papal-Caesarism, Caesaropapism. And I think there was a reaction against that. Although, that is not to say that I don't think the individual Christians weren't being innocently persecuted for 70-80 years under atheistic communism.

I don't take that parable of the Good Samaritan literally. In fact, I have a different interpretation. The person who was hurt (=scourged/crucified) on his way from Jerusalem (=messiah) to Jericho (=conquest) is Jesus Christ himself. The people who ignored him represent the other religions, whereas the Samaritan represents the Orthodox Church that served him.

When interpeted in this manner, Ortho-praxis should make sense.

I know you don't take the story of the good Samaratin literally. I don't either, it's a parable. I know that the Orthodox have a different take on that.

But I find it interesting that Jesus used the scandal of a heretic in his parable of who would inherit eternal life from being merciful. Someone who was considered religiously incorrect, whose lifestyle was unorthodox. Someone who was religiously impure, who worshiped the wrong way and in the wrong places. This was scandelous to the Jews who heard this.

Now you said you take the person who was hurt, as Jesus Christ Himself, and those who served the hurt Jesus as the Samartin.

If you read Matt. 25: 31-46 you will see that Jesus seems to be saying that those who are considered lowly, hungry, outcasts and strangers are who He indentifies Himself with. Or at least, He is saying He wants us to see Him in these people in particular. Possibly because most people don't see God in the least of these and so ignore them and make them feel like unworthy outsiders.

The Sheep and the Goats
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?bo ... version=31

1st John says that God is Love and that those who do not know God, do not know Love. I think Jesus used the heretical Samartin in his parable as the own who inherited eternal life because the Samaritin is the one who was truly Orthodox in his heart. He could see the hurt Christ and so helped Him while those who could easily be considered Orthodox and right with God couldn't see God and so passed Him by.

[runamokmonk]

good thoguhts runamuck. I can't answer it, but good thoughts. Lattely I've begun to think a lot about how meaningless words are. I am inclined to care less about doctrine and more about action. And art. I feel that art is some kind of gateway to the spirit and doesn't require any sort of doctrinal correctness.

thanks! Well, I was going to say that what you may feel about art I feel about music. But music is art too! I have had trouble my whole life with God. But music, it could make me feel that if there was God, music was God or, from God. Because music could/can make me feel this certain way sometimes where I felt something.

[KR Wordgazer]

I take the Good Samaritan parable at face value. The question Jesus is answering at this point is not "what must I do to have eternal life?" but "who is my neighbor?" Jesus told a story to make it clear that your "neighbor" is everyone, regardless of race, religion or nationality. Also, to be a "neighbor" is to act like a neighbor, not just to talk about it.

I don't see any reason to look for extra, allegorical readings. The point is that we aren't to make distinctions who we are going to help. Jesus wasn't saying this made the Samaritan right with God (in fact, in another passage, with the woman at the well, He makes it clear that He doesn't believe the Samaritans are in the right regarding salvation), but that the Samaritan's actions were the right actions. It's all too easy for us to talk religious talk but not follow it up with holy, loving action.

Jesus had already answered the question about how to have eternal life. It was "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself." The parable says nothing about how the Samaritan kept the first commandment. The parable is an exposition on the second commandment. The idea is not, "everyone who does good works will be considered right with God." The idea is, "to be right with God is to love truly, and to love truly is to do what's needed, not just talk.'


For the rest, I really have difficulty with any Christian group saying, "Our group, and our group only, is the True Church. The rest of you who believe in Christ, God only knows what you are."

The True Church is every seed sown in the field which is wheat and not a tare. The True Church is every fish pulled from the net which is a good fish and not a bad fish. And only God and the angels will know how to divide them out at the end. (Matthew 36-50). The True Church is everyone who truly turns from their sins, trusts Jesus as Lord and Savior, takes up his/her cross, and follows Him. Part of following Him is to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself."

[runamokmonk]

The point is that we aren't to make distinctions who we are going to help.

The thing I am trying to point out is that Jesus puts our attention on the identity of the man who does the helping, an impure heretic. And at the end he tells the expert of the law to "go and do likewise" as the heretic.

I think if the parable was to tell us to not make distinctions on who we help the one being helped would have been the Samaritan. The attention isn't exactly being put on the identity of the one hurt. The one who is being a good neighbor and showing mercy is the doctrinal heretic. At least, that's how see it.

I think he's saying the choices we make toward others are even more important than beliefs.

Look at Matt. 25: 31-46, He's talking about separating goats from sheep on their treatment of others not on which group or belief system someone belongs to. It looks to me that people who didn't even know they were helping Christ are called righetous.

the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'[/quote