Thread 24575300

One of the main normie objections to Christianity is asking why would God make creation so full of evil and imperfections. Usually the reply of protestant or even catholic Christians is to say that man has free will (which is true) and therefore he is responsible for the evil he produces. Unfortunately this response is unsatisfactory, especially when one also studies and realizes the imperfections found in other created beings, be it animals which act in ways contrary to their interests of survival or various minor parasitic life forms. It should be said that both protestants should know from the Bible that the devil is the prince of this world but this teaching is much more emphasized in ascetic literature, which protestants lack. Now, what is unique about Orthodox theology and explains not only man's evil actions but especially the imperfections found in nature is the teaching that the fall of man wasn't only a legal punishment waiting for atonement but a change in his nature which as a result affected the whole of the universe, because man is the microcosm of creation, this is particularly evident in the writings of St. Symeon the New Theologians. I think that if Christians would present their worldview like this, agnostics would find it much more satisfactory than the mere free will argument.

>>24575300 (OP)
That's just deism with extra steps

>>24575317
that's absurd, Orthodox Christianity's core is its mystical tradition which exists up to this day, its saints experience God's uncreated energies, they know God through direct experience in this life.

Yeah I used to think sethianism had the best theodicy but since then I came to the truth

>>24575363
If creation changed due to man's actions and god doesn't intervene to fix the problem of evil, it's deism muh dude.

Also , am raised in orthodkx country , you don't have to lecture me about ninja-priest cope

>>24575426
Deism means that God doesn't intervene at all in the world which no Orthodox believes, you're using this term in a totally inaccurate way
>Also , am raised in orthodkx country , you don't have to lecture me about ninja-priest cope
so am I and before I started to read online about Orthodoxy I knew almost nothing about it except slander from souless normgroids, that's the effect of almost a century of communism and two decades of americanism

>>24575300 (OP)
Lolwhat, this is just Augustinianism. You should unironically consider reading the reformers, you might agree with them on a lot.

I don't understand why you think this argument is more satisfying or sensible. Seems indistinguishable from any other Christian interpretation.

i do not know anything of orthodoxy

>>24575300 (OP)
Based and checked.

>>24575300 (OP)
There's nothing exclusively Orthodox (as in, belonging to the group of primarily Russian and Greek churches that are not in communion with Rome) about the belief that man's fall affected all of creation and I have in fact heard it from the mouths of Roman Catholic priests. It's just not a dogmatic teaching. St. Symeon himself is venerated by Byzantine Catholics, and lived mostly before the schism. The notion that man's fall was a change of his nature is Catholic and is expounded by Saint Augustine.
>>24575426
It's important to note that God did, and still does, intervene in the problem of evil through the person of Jesus Christ his Son and through the Church founded in remembrance of Him.

>>24576314
It’s Catholicism but more autistic and deeply shaped by getting raped my commies and Muslims. Orthodox theology is just cope for this fact.

>>24576496
>more autistic
We aren't the ones with a magisterium that has produced tomes upon tomes of theological dogma over the centuries, but your post is bait anyway

This idea gives a proposed (but still schizophrenic) mechanism to the idea. It does not address the why, only the how. Why did he engineer a situation where it is EVER possible to have a vestigial organ that fatally explodes at random?
Not that this is a serious topic: you are all profoundly, pitifully gullible.

>>24576532
Because love through coercion is not love

>24575300
>free will (which is so heckin truke)
Romans 9:21
Hath not the potter power of the clay to make of the same lump one vessel to honor, and another unto dishonor?
Your will is primarily determined by genetics, parenting, environmental factors and random events or people that either traumatize or inspire.

>>24576548
Once on Mount Athos there was a monk who lived in Karyes. He drank and got drunk every day and was the cause of scandal to the pilgrims. Eventually he died and this relieved some of the faithful who went on to tell Elder Paisios that they were delighted that this huge problem was finally solved.

Father Paisios answered them that he knew about the death of the monk, after seeing the entire battalion of angels who came to collect his soul. The pilgrims were amazed and some protested and tried to explain to the Elder of whom they were talking about, thinking that the Elder did not understand.

Elder Paisios explained to them: "This particular monk was born in Asia Minor, shortly before the destruction by the Turks when they gathered all the boys. So as not to take him from their parents, they would take him with them to the reaping, and so he wouldn't cry, they just put raki into his milk in order for him to sleep. Therefore he grew up as an alcoholic. There he found an elder and said to him that he was an alcoholic.

The elder told him to do prostrations and prayers every night and beg the Panagia to help him to reduce by one the glasses he drank.

After a year he managed with struggle and repentance to make the 20 glasses he drank into 19 glasses. The struggle continued over the years and he reached 2-3 glasses, with which he would still get drunk."

The world for years saw an alcoholic monk who scandalized the pilgrims, but God saw a fighter who fought a long struggle to reduce his passion.

Without knowing what each one is trying to do, what he wants to do, what right do we have to judge his effort?"

>>24576548
Also, atheists like to misinterpret Paul's famous "vessels of wrath" in Romans but the Greek verb katērtismena ("prepared") is perfect passive/middle. There is an ambiguity between passive (prepared by another) and middle (prepared themselves). If middle, the vessels prepared themselves for destruction, implying moral agency
The preceding clause also emphasizes God’s patience, but obviously you haven't quoted it
>What if God, desiring to show his wrath [...] has endured with much patience
There is toleration of rebellion rather than unilateral causation, patience presupposes opportunity for repentance
And of course vessels of wrath have to be contrasted with the vessels of mercy, as verse 23 uses the active voice for "he prepared beforehand for glory" (proētoimasen)
If you have such an asymmetry in verbs then it's easy to infer from that a deliberate grammatical context i.e. God actively prepares vessels for mercy but passively endures vessels of wrath.
That's just basic exegesis, on top of which you have to add the actual meaning of these verses in their proper context, but since atheists are notoriously intellectually dishonest, I'll refrain from doing so as it would just fall on deaf ears

>>24576532
>schizophrenic
So a heretical?

>>24575317
Christianity had exactly nothing to contribute on the question of God, and stole every good argument from the greeks. The best debates on God are all hamstrung by the baggage of the kike tradition (that Christians try to just ignore) and the metaphysical garbage cope of the trinity. If you take away the jewish crap and the jewish messiah crap what’s left is just Aristotle. Deists realized this. Greeks arguing against Christians at the time realized they had nothing to contribute.

The saddest part is that all the kike horseshit only ever acts as an albatross around their necks. All their dilemmas and woes and discussions of how to make sense of the obvious bullshit is borne not out of seeking answers about God BUT BY HAVING TO RECONCILE IT WITH THE TRIBAL GOD BULLSHIT. They had outgrown that mystical nonsense more than 2000 years ago. We’re only stuck with it now because your predecessors were even dumber than you are.

>>24576601
Your official history was written by kikes and their shabbo goys.
So let that sink in, fedora.

>>24576564
But i am not atheist.

What are some good book son this shit?

>>24576564
>>24576555
Greetings brother thank you for gracing this website with your posts may God bless you, Father Son and Holy Spirit

>>24577718
Thank you friend, God bless you

>>24576886
Start with the Fathers

>>24575300 (OP)
It is much more satisfactory, but it demands a much larger suspension of disbelief. An agnostic can somewhat bite the free will bullet despite not being completely sold. But the idea that the entire cosmos was profoundly different? And that humanity has changed something we find to archeologically predate it? To many that is a non-starter because of the literal-metaphorical dichotomy they grew up in.

>>24575426
>and god doesn't intervene to fix the problem of evil
God sent his son. Evil will be defeated through him.

>>24576601
>stole every good argument from the greeks
Curious then that most of Christian arguments directly oppose the mainstream Greek beliefs of their time.

>>24575300 (OP)

The One is simply amoral, morality is subjective, this cuts the gordian knot without relying on endless cope and trying to assign blame to subsequent creations and phenomena which themselves God would be responsible for anyway.

>>24578763
>a much larger suspension of disbelief.
Does it? It's clearly observable that the whole of creation is fallen. Every single religion makes that observation, it's intuitively obvious. The idea that the pre-Fall, edenic cosmos was ontologically different from the current universe and outside of time is sensible.

>>24578771
The observation that the current cosmos is not in its tip top shape is uncontroversial. The proposition that this state came about during humanity's existence is not materially tenable, meaning it cannot be literally true. And to a modern mind the only alternative to literal truth is a metaphore. I don't see that anyone would accept a metaphore as an answer to the problem of evil.

>>24578777
>The proposition that this state came about during humanity's existence is not materially tenable
Checked, but the general consensus among Orthodox theologians is that time and space as we experience them now came as a result of the Fall. Creation predates this universe, as strange as it may sound when put like this; man was created before the universe as we know it started existing, as that starting point was the Fall itself.

>>24578784
And I would agree with that. But this means that to satisfy an average modernist's take on the problem of evil, you have to make him ... not modernist. You'd have to guide him through his own personal axial revolution, posit a world-behind-this-world, fill that spiritual world with a specific symbolic narrative (after explaining what symbol is at all) and then point out the bit that addresses evil.
I myself and Orthodox and even I had to exert some effort to go through all these perspectival changes. I cannot even imagine inducing this shift in anyone else, or at least not with discoursive reasoning and argumentation.

>>24578798
The average modernist is a physicalist and will not even entertain the idea that he is not a bag of flesh whose consciousness is an emergent phenomenon from electrons "bouncing around " (he doesn't know what an electron is or how it behaves). To introduce Orthodox cosmology to this kind of person is not sensible, you have to break down the assumptions of scientism first.
>I had to exert some effort
What did you have a hard time with specifically? I used to be particularly interested in more dualistic cosmologies as I thought they explained the problem of evil better, but I now find the Orthodox explanation more elegant, reliant on fewer assumptions and overall more satisfying, although it does require accepting a level of mystery in this life that will not be revealed until death.

>>24578765
>Morality is subjective
Subject to what?

>>24578804
>To introduce Orthodox cosmology to this kind of person is not sensible, you have to break down the assumptions of scientism first.
That is exactly my point (as long a "scientism" means materialism). That answer cannot be accepted unless the person is willing to literally give up their entire worldview. Which makes it an ineffective answer.
>What did you have a hard time with specifically?
Understanding the concept of a symbol in at all, why it does not conform to the literal-metaphorical dichotomy. It did not help that most Orthodox authors write markedly worse than their Catholic and Protestant counterparts. I can now sort of put it all together, mostly thanks to Pavel Florensky, but without his writings I'm not sure where I'd be. Probably on Youtube, listening to Jonathan Pageau talk for three hours about how cities have minds, and then I'd go ask chatGPT why an emergent property would be metaphysically more important than its material substrate. Although Pageau is a great entry point.
> I now find the Orthodox explanation more elegant
The most elegant explanation is ethical monism as presented by Gregory Nazianzen in Catechetial Oration. It requires nothing of the reader except follow an argument against dualism and everything else stems from there. As opposed to the Genesis story, where you'd essentially be telling an average Western person "drop your entire worldview and adopt exactly mine and you'll have your answer".

>>24578829
>unless the person is willing to literally give up their entire worldview
I mean, you work them up to it. From materialism to some kind of nondescript platonic idealism, then to theism, and so on.
>most Orthodox authors write markedly worse than their Catholic and Protestant counterparts
You find Protestant writers more compelling than the Fathers? I mean you mentioned Nazianzen so I assume you're familiar with patristics in general
When it comes to modern authors I really like how DBH writes and he's especially good on the subject of theodicy, if you haven't checked him out I highly recommend you do.
Pageau is good but I could never really get into his stuff for some reason. It's been a long time, I'll try again
>ethical monism
Yes, it is very elegant. Kinda deviates from the subject but I like philosophical systems that ground themselves in ethics rather than metaphysics/ontology, thinking mainly of Levinas here who takes ethics as first philosophy, i.e. responsibility to the Other precedes ontology. I find this particularly compelling and beautiful
>the Genesis story
For modernists it's either you go the metaphysics route and slowly guide them from materialism to Christian metaphysics, or for the more empirically inclined, you just show them the evidence for the Resurrection and explain how everything flows from there. If Christ is God, then accepting Genesis is just a matter of faith

>>24578807
>Subject to what?
It is subject to be being completely relative to perspective of the observer or the imaginer without having its own existence as an eternal realm, reality or true criteria beyond how it appears subjectively relative to each observer. It’s like what each people consider “cool” in every era.

>>24578870
>You find Protestant writers more compelling than the Fathers?
I wouldn't compare a (relatively) recent author with a Church Father, I meant that if you take two published theologians from the last 200 years, the Catholic will be systematic and clear whereas the Orthodox will circle around topics, repeat himself continuously and phrase things as awkwardly as the language allows them. And the funniest thing of them all is that when the Orthodox theologian starts narrating the Catholic viewpoint, they become extremely succinct and clear for a moment. Incredible.
From Protestants I must confess I only read Tilich who is a generational talent in writing and philosophy, so the comparison is unfair.
>DBH
Agreed, he's sort of in-between the categories. Orthodox enough to know the true doctrine, philosopher enough to put it clearly, but since I found out his fondness of universalism I decided I've read enough.
>I like philosophical systems that ground themselves in ethics rather than metaphysics/ontology
Same. It's more embodied - exactly the spirit of Orthodoxy.
>you work them up to it
>it's either you go the metaphysics route
>or ... you just show them the evidence for the Resurrection
May God help them.

>>24578897
Well, I guess Catholicism has historically been much more systematized and dogmatically rigorous than Orthodoxy, so this isn't really surprising. There's a level of "comfort with mystery" Orthodoxy has that I don't find in Catholicism at all, and perhaps what you describe among Orthodox authors is a consequence of that
>his fondness of universalism
He presents the idea endearingly. He does weasel around a bit in a way that I sometimes find slightly intellectually dishonest, as I'm sure he's completely aware that he always toes the line of heresy but never quite crosses it. Great writer nonetheless
>May God help them
Unfortunately I tend to find a "block" with these people. Those who are even slightly receptive to the idea of Christianity being true almost always come from another religion or a non-materialist belief system, but those who have espoused materialism/scientism seem completely unwilling to even entertain other possibilities.

>>24578922
>toes the line of heresy but never quite crosses it
Doesn't he?
>I tend to find a "block" with these people
Of course. You're trying to re-invent their entire worldview. It's amazing they even let you try.

>>24578936
Well, if we're talking about universalism, it wasn't explicitly and formally condemned in itself but if I recall correctly it's the claim of universalism being theologically dogmatic that is considered heretical. That's what I mean when I say he's somewhat intellectually dishonest
>It's amazing they even let you try
They don't really, they don't take it seriously.

>>24578944
ChatGPT tells me that he's not been formally condemned but that he writes...
>...In his 2019 book, That All Shall Be Saved: Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation, Hart argues forcefully and explicitly that: “If Christianity taken as a whole is true, then universal salvation is true.”
Which seems to me to be beyond the line of hope and already in a sort of certainty, which is contrary to doctrine. But I suppose it's more ambiguous than I thought.

>>24578957
Yeah, I read the book and he makes very confident claims in it, that universalism is basically logically necessary and so on. I mean the arguments are compelling but it's not dogmatic and it's still foolish to assume you can somehow arrive at a definitive answer concerning the nature of Heaven and Hell from your fallen reason

>>24575300 (OP)
The extratemporal fall - the idea that the Fall of Adam was outside of time, and that man lives in a fallen creation riddled with mortality as a result, is very intuitive to me.
It is a complex idea, but the complexity is thoroughly resolved by contemplating the relationship of man to his free will, to God, and the significance of the Incarnation of Christ.
I also think it's wonderful how such an idea could be developed by early modern thinkers from antique and medieval frameworks, but resiliently stand the test of time into the present day.

>>24579180
I wonder how saints' intercession works if heaven if outside of time

Orthodoxy is a larp, they have the same teachings as Catholics but with a retarded ecclesiology. The fact is, people like OP convert to it for aesthetic reasons - beards, “muh asceticism”, “mysticism” (because Catholicism has no asceticism or mysticism? lol). If you go to a Catholic mass there’s a good chance you’ll be sitting next to a middle class housewife or a Mexican construction worker and that’s simply not based enough for the Orthobros. 100% aesthetics and pride.

>>24580774
bait post

>>24580774
I agree that many Americans treat it as LARP, but they are different things.
>because Catholicism has no asceticism or mysticism?
They are fairly far apart. The closest thing to Orthodox spirituality that I've seen in the West is Teresa of Avila and her inward castle. But besides that the approaches are very different: the Orthodox are aiming for a direct experience, to see the Uncreated Light because in Orthodoxy, divine energies are God himself but not God's essence. Catholics dismiss this difference and codified this rejection in Luteran IV and council of Florence (?). What Orthodoxy treats as the beating heart of the entire faith is relegated to secondary mode of engagement in Catholicism, where impersonating (in a good way) Christ is key and in some cases it just might or might not lead to supernatural results such as stigmata (which are very rare in Orthodoxy).

>>24580797
“As far as I know, Catholicism only produced one mystic”. - This is your typical orthobro. If you actually know both traditions, there is no real difference. The superficial difference is that Orthodox parishes in the states are full of enthusiastic converts while Catholic ones contain more normal people. As I said, 100% aesthetics and pride. Augustine even said during the Donatist schism that it’s common for schismatic and heretical groups to appear superficially “purer” because the real, universal Church contains all sorts of people - the lax, suburban housewives, Mexicans, and so on. Orthobros think Christianity should be an elite club. They are elitists, you sense this tone in every one of their posts. To be fair, the “tradcaths” are pretty much the same.

>>24580832
No idea who you're quoting. John of the Cross is looking at me from my bookshelf right now. I was addressing who is the closest to Orthodoxy.

>>24580832
>Orthos are afraid of Mexicans
But not afraid of Ethiopians and Georgians? Huh?

>>24576555
uh oh...

>>24580832
Your own posts and your assumptions about the "legitimacy" of the faith of Orthodox converts are the ones coming off as prideful, demeaning and full of vitriol

I wonder why Catholic literature threads are generally civil while Orthodox threads always seem to be shitposted to death by extremely vocal and unpleasant tradcath keyboard crusaders

>Religionslop
Grow up dude

>>24580958
C'mon you know why

>>24580958
He's just a terminally online american who's probably never been to church altogether (catholic or orthodox)

>get baptized into the Orthodox Church three months ago
>everything in my life starts going wrong, everything becomes tedious and the most minor things start giving me trouble whereas it all used to go smoothly
Man

>>24581418
Pray for Leo XIV

>>24581811
What?

>>24581818
I'm saying you gotta be reconciled to the papacy. As far as I understand, which isn't very far and you should speak to a priest about this if you're serious, your baptism is a valid induction into life with Christ. This means though that the spiritual states of sin and grace become much more "palpable," as some put it. If you are making regular confession and not missing Mass then maybe you're lucky enough that God is pushing you towards the One True Church. Additionally, you don't have to be Roman Catholic and chances are there's a Byzantine or other Eastern rite church near you. The important thing is communion with the Seat of Peter. Truly though I am not qualified to be a source of authority on this, and it is just as possible that you are being united to Christ in a real way through suffering. What's your prayer life like?

>>24581862
Thank you but I wasn't asking for advice from Catholics, I believe Orthodoxy is the true Church

>>24581862
>>24583121
As far as prayer life goes, I do morning and evening prayer, evening being longer and more personal. But my prayers feel dry and devoid of grace.

In the Eastern Orthodox view, does God give you a calling that is to be found, or does He sanctify you through the choices you freely make?

I wanted to be orthodox because I like the theology, but the holy spirit has led me to catholicism. The orthodox believe that the experience of God is the only way to know him, so I believe I'm justified.

>>24583993
God bless you. I don't believe "only the Orthodox are saved" to be a dogmatic assertion.
>You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Savior Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever.
>St. Theophan the Recluse

Jay Dyer is an expert on Orthodox philosophy and he has pwned lots of Papalists, evangelicals, feminists, Zionists, liberals, Moslems, and globalists in debates.

>>24584263
Why do you catholics keep shitting up these threads

>>24584274
I am not a Papist.

>>24584302
Jay Dyer is a clown, please don't listen to him on matters relating to Orthodoxy. Listen to or better yet talk to actual priests

>>24584305
I also like Fr. Peter Heers.

>>24584313
Yeah he's good
Fr. Spyridon and Fr. Paul Truebenbach as well

>>24584321
What do you have against Jay Dyer?
I told him my philosophical analysis of The Twilight Zone and he agreed with me.

>>24584325
I find his content on Hollywood films, geopolitics, psychological warfare and culture entertaining, especially his stuff on espionage and psychological operations in media
But when it comes to theology he's exactly what people mean when they use the term "orthobro". He's a polemicist who prioritizes intellectual combat and rhetorics over pastoral discernment, he's not a spiritual physician like a priest would be. I don't like how he makes Orthodoxy an ideology

I find the religious world view impossible to understand, regardless of denomination. I've never read anything about religion or spirituality that made sense to me. Just endless jargon, weird assumptions, and a general sense that religion is utterly foreign to my life experience.

>>24584528
Do you believe in God?

>>24575300 (OP)
Orthodoxy is a fraud. Their entire shtick is to claim things that are common to all denominations, especially things they share with Catholics, are only theirs. They paint these cartoonish caricatures of everyone else, meanwhile pretending like they're this exalted Mystick Ascetickal group with razor-thin bearded monks walking around everywhere. I had an Orthodox the other day here claim that the Orthodox are the only ones who "care about mysticism". It's a scam, luckily only gullible people fall for it.
>Now, what is unique about Orthodox theology and explains not only man's evil actions but especially the imperfections found in nature is the teaching that the fall of man wasn't only a legal punishment waiting for atonement but a change in his nature which as a result affected the whole of the universe, because man is the microcosm of creation, this is particularly evident in the writings of St. Symeon the New Theologians.
Whoah bro I never heard of that except maybe in Augustine's De Trinitate. Here you see a classic case, the orthobro grasps onto some little "nugget" of Antient Wisdom and claims only they have ever heard of it, meanwhile those Catholics are waddling around talking about legal punishment. You are such a nigger my man.

>>24583122
Try praying the Jesus Prayer (Lord Jesus Christ Son of God have mercy on me a sinner) hundreds of time while prostrating.

>>24584550
They also pretend that different theological theories which have become unattractive to modern people are uniquely Catholic/Protestant, when they're actually all over the writings of their own saints. But the Orthodox can tell a simple story and simple people fall for it: the Catholics are, like, these inquisitor dudes, and they just like think in terms of Law and Punishment... I mean just look they talk about penance all the time helloooo it's metanoia!! Ever heard of it? And like they're sort of, like, modernist? I guess? And their churches are ugly... nah bro you don't want anything to do with those cats." Fake, frauds, arrogant converts who read too much and think they're experts in theology. There's nothing good about the Orthodox.

>>24575300 (OP)
>Unfortunately this response is unsatisfactory, especially when one also studies and realizes the imperfections found in other created beings, be it animals which act in ways contrary to their interests of survival or various minor parasitic life forms.
The 'fall of creation' is alluded to right there in Genesis. The snake loses its legs, and all of a sudden it's hard to farm. Also Paul writes about all of creation "groaning" in a state of disorder awaiting the "revealing of the children of God", and says that "creation itself will be set free from its enslavement to decay." Do the Orthodox literally think they're the only people that read Romans?
> It should be said that both protestants should know from the Bible that the devil is the prince of this world but this teaching is much more emphasized in ascetic literature, which protestants lack.
This is a lie on two counts. 1) the black ladies at work say that shit all the time, and 2) many protestants do value asceticism and even fasting, though they tend not to use the a word. And this is not surprising given what is there in the New Testament about it.

Orthodoxbros completely and absolutely in SHAMBLES

>>24584708
>Everything I hoped to accomplish had failed
nice

>>24584540
No. I don't even understand what God is supposed to be.