Mopac

Look at youu telling us what we believe. How arrogant.

I will tell you what I believe. Scriptural interpretation outside of the church is invalid.

I've never heard of a dog, monkey, or a potato-bug that nerded out over comic books and patterned their lives around the aquiring and consuming of comic book related paraphernalia.

You will find both pagans and so called atheists doing this.

The same light of God thst is paradise to those who chose to love Him is the very same fire that torments those who have chosen delusion.

God knows those who are His. God's judgement is always righteous.

The engineer's response.

God certainly speaks through the things thst are made. Indeed, this is how we, as created beings living in creation interact with God. It is how God is revealed.

 

If you aren't a slave to God, you are a slave to what you prefer over God anyway. You are a slave to error.

Tell me what they value, show me their life. It isn't usually that difficult  to see what makes life for someone, or what people prefer over the truth. 

The only thing that is functionally different between an atheist and a pagan is that the pagan isn't in denial of the fact that they bow to gods.

I would rather abide in The Truth than iniquity, even if that means becoming less so that He becomes more.

In The Truth there is life. Iniquity looks or feels good, but in the end it is death. 

A puppet doesn't choose to cooperate. 

I never did understand the stigma behind the.phrase "brainwashing". I certainly would rather have a clean mind than a defiled one.

We believe in theosis, that is, being united to God through cooperation with the divine energy. 

We do not believe in apotheosis, or the becoming God in essence. We do not become God in essence, but we are deified through the Godman(Christ) that works in us and through us. 

I was speaking of how it is in America, not Europe. I don't live in Europe. I hear things about Europe.

The state of "Christianity" in America is overwhelmingly protestant in mentality. Basically, people just pick and choose what they like, or rely too much on their own interpretations of things without consulting what the historical church has believed.

Anarchistic and mostly with amnesia. That is American "Christianity".

American Christianity is very heterodox. Not Orthodox. 

Jesus Christ is theanthropos not hemitheos.

That is simply not what we believe, and I doubt you do either.

Not at all.

100% God

100% Man

Not 50/50.

And Christ is among us and ever shall be, there is no "was" about it.

I look in the mirror, and when I think of my struggle with God, I realize that my struggle takes the form of wrestling with a man.

The Church of Sweden is Lutheran.

The best thing about Martin Luther is that being a good German he drank(and hated Jews... wait, no that isn't a good German), and when he drank he was notorious for talking MAD TRASH. Some of it pretty funny.

I am pretty sure Luther if saw the state of the church that bears his name today would be appalled. Even Luther, despite his justification by faith alone theology recognized antinomianism as a heresy. I am pretty sure he would be offended at the wishy washy ELCA here in America. Not really sure what Lutheranism looks like in Sweden.

I know what the church teaches is true, I am a witness. I am certain that the Orthodox is the definitive Christian Church. Firstly because historically speaking it is the original church, and all schisms can be shown historically as deviations from the church. Secondly because it is clear to me after comparing doctrine and such that The Orthodox Church has a deeper and more enlightened understanding of theology.

These two facts alone rule out every other church that calls itself Christian.

There is no organization on the planet that had even come close to the longevity of the Apostolic Church. It is the oldest and longest running continuous institution on the planet.

And saying that, I would like to make clear that I am specifically talking about the aspect of the church that is apostolic, that is, the Holy Orders of the church. Our line of bishops that go back to the apostles ordained by Christ. Truly, the church is uncreated and has existed eternally. The Apostolic Church is a witness to the uncreated Church, and these two are one, just as Christ's divinity exists in eternity, and the man came into being.

The fundamental reality or hypostasis we are talking about is Christ. It is understood by the church that the incarnation effectively deifies creation, uniting it to God.

Or as the scriptures say,

"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

What do you mean by doctrine theology? Doctrine is simply what the church teaches.

Something that began to exist and will at some point no longer exist is by nature different than something that exists eternally.

Contingent existence is by nature different than non-contingent existence.

For you to say they are the same nature is some type of monophysitism. This is not the same as saying these two different natures are united without confusion, without mixture, and without division within one fundamental reality. It is 2 physis united in 1 hypostasis, not 1 compound physis. 

God is in the whole thing.

This is the correct and therefore orthodox formulation.

As they believe in a dead god, probably not much.

Belief in God alone very rarely does much on its own. I know The Truth exists, but if I don't love The Truth, my belief in it is not going to have me see honesty as a virtue. Why be honest when I can just live in self imposed delusion while saying, "That's the way it is"? Maybe instead of loving The Truth over all things, I love myself and care more about what I can get out of The Truth. Maybe I love The Truth insomuch as I can profit. Is that really loving the truth or is it taking myself as an idol before the truth? The question is rhetorical, of course it is the later.

Perhaps the atheist that came to believe that the big bang as god might be inspired to become a physicist or something. Maybe they will be more charitable towards others who believe in gods or God. Maybe they find that they have trouble hanging around the same people. Who knows! There are so many variables that we can't account for, and faith is a living thing, not a casted image.

We would say that the divine essence cannot be seen, and is outside our ability to know. God is witnessed through the things that are created. We see God through a veil, only by the divine energy that is everywhere present and fills all things. We of course would say that God knows all things, even better than a human could, because God is always present. The omniscience of God is something completely other and beyond what human knowledge can comprehend. It is beyond knowing. Divinity and creation are united in hypostasis, and this hypostasis is God enfleshed with creation, clothed in majesty.

In this hypostasis, the divine and the created are united together, without confusion or separation. Divinity and creation both have distinct physis or natures, so they are not the same. The hypostasis is not half divine half creation, and the natures are not confused. The hypostasis itself is fully God, and all of creation is united to it in divinity.

To say that God does not interact with creation could not be the case. It is God that both gives everything in creation its existence, and is there giving everything its action. When we do something, it is in and by God that we move.

Everything that is known is creation. So yes, there is a common nature of known things.

God if we were to compare  God's existence with the existence of any created thing, we could even say that God is beyond existence. Even the term, "Ultimate Reality" does not capture how distinct the nature is of this existence when compared to other examples of existence. We are talking about the source of all existence, the sustainer of all existence, and that which even the things that have passed and have yet to be find their existence.

Your position is entirely based on looking at this "no holy rule book" thing with tunnel vision. It is also making the claim that belief in God or lack thereof has no practical implications. 

You don't need a holy rule book for your beliief in a god to have practical implicatons. You don't need to believe in a god for there to be a god that you in action show devotion to in spirit. Indeed, most atheists have gods, they are simply in denial of them. I would also wager that the vast majority of the different types of god believers who have existed didn't require a "holy rule book."

I would also like to point out that to refer to say, Orthodox Scriptures as a "Holy rule book" is a mischaracterization and grossly inaccurate. I can't speak for other traditions who have scripture, but I believe it would be the case that most of them are not "holy rule books" as you irreverently call them.

One believes in God or gods.

One is in denial of God or gods.

They are opposite positions.

Do you deny belief as a function? 

Theism snd Deism mean the same thing.

I dispute that a holy rule book has  anything to do with theism or deism, which are just Greek and Latin words respectively for the same concept.

Even if I were to grant your distinction, there is definitely a difference between someone who acknowledges a god, gods, or God and one who is in denial of God and all gods.

What you call mind, we call nous. I am pretty sure that is what you mean. The word sometimes gets translated into "mind".

This particular Nous(not to be confused with our own mind, more of a cosmic "mind") is also very related to what we call the divine logos. In fact, it has been identified with God's law or even God outright by some Church Fathers.

The Uncreated, that is divine,  is fundamentally dissimilar from creation. However, we say that the uncreated and created are united in one fundamental reality or hypostasis.

I don't really think this is different than what you are saying, sans your conclusion of "epistemological monism", which I can't say is true or false as I am not sure what you mean by this.

It is a pope card from the modern day Erisian cult of Discordianism(Eris being the ancient Greek goddess of chaos, discord, and strife)

It is kind of a joke on a few levels. One, I am not endorsing Discordianism. Two, Discordian literature tends to have them pitted against the illuminati 

Let me try to interpret.

The mind is not the brain, but manifestations of the mind. Basically, a mind is composed of say, thoughts rather than organic matter and such. You are also claiming that nothing exists apart from this mind, that something only exists so far as it exists in this mind.

Would you say this is a correct interpretation?

Asking to prove God is like saying, "Prove to me that it is true that there is truth!"

God is The Truth. Not facts. Not truths. The Truth. The Ultimate Reality. Not what one can imagine that to be, but what that truly is in essence.

Well, if Krishna is just another word for God, I say a rose called by any other name is still in essence a rose.

However, I have a feeling that maybe you don't really know much about this Krishna subject, and you are simply using another one of your fill in the blank arguments. You could easily replace Krishna with moldy onions and have the same argument. 

I couldn't tell you much based on this info alone. I don't know what you really mean by Krishna. I don't know the doctrine you believe. 

I can say that when you say, "I love Krishna and I know Krishna is the Ultimate  Reality" it sounds a lot like you might  have a conception of God that you call the ultimate reality. The Ultimate Reality is not a conception, an idea, or any other created thing, be it of matter or mind. 

What does loving Krishna look like?

It is plain as day what loving tbe truth above all else entails. It entails the purifying of the nous, the subduing of the passions, and the struggle to rid oneself of delusion.

The Ultimate Reality is God.

The Ultimate Reality is not a construct, all constructs have their existence in it.

I cannot speak for these chakras as the information I have access to in this topic does not give me any clarity on that subject. It would be easy for me to dismiss it all together, but instead I will say I don't know because I don't understand it to dismiss it. I know what it looks like to me, but I don't know what it is.

It isn't hair splitting, it is relevent.

Loving any god is not the same as loving the truth. I know you like fill in the blanks, but this is not a fill in a blank.

I would appreciate it if you wouldn't mutilate my posts. Do I have to make smaller posts?

How does belief in God effect my values? It doesn't as I already stated. Love of God is where the effect is. 

So you admit that  God gave us the ability to choose.

Well, I'd hope so considering most of the bible makes it very clear that repenting is important, as is choosing not to sin. 

Belief is functionally different than non belief.

Belief in Truth is definitely different than not believing in truth. 

I couldn't lose faith because I understand what it is our faith is in and thus realize nothing else can be valid.

You don't understand what our faith is in, and so your grasp of it is very superficial. You only see the created externals of faith, not the spirit that inspires these manifestations.

What is my religion? Sincerity of faith and charity. Where could I go after this? Self deception and apathy toward my neighbor? It would be like a dog returning to his own vomit and eating  it for me to choose worldliness over godliness. Everything in this world is vanity, I gain no pleasure from it anyway. Even the things that bring brief enjoyment leave empty soon after. My fortress, my home, my rest is in God. My life's focus is to abide in God with both my heart and mind. In my walk.

What is life without God? Meaningless. Vain. Not even really life, but death. Endless suffering and no consolation. With God, I have my consolation. With God I can endure the suffering and even transcend it. Without God there is no reason for anything. It is an empty existence where life is simply the satisfying of the lusts of the mind and flesh. What else is there? Where is the motivation? Where is the conviction? Everything is done for the hell of it.

I dispute that noumenon is spinoza's God to begin with.

God is not a manifestation of the mind. If that was the case, mind would be God. At that point, you wouldn't say God is noumenon, instead you would say that God is nous.

And even that sounds pretty new age hippy dippy.

You didn't tell me how you understand belief. For all I know, you could be saying something meaningless like "There is no functional difference between belief in the tastiness of apples and belief in the fluffiness of clouds."

But in any case, these are functionally different. 

Maybe you should say what you mean by functional as well.

You say my cup is empty, I say it is full of air.

I don't believe that belief in the existence of Deity or deities is not functionally the same as lack of belief in Deity or deities. 

What do you say belief is?

It is written that God "commandeth all men every where to repent"

Besides you are wrong. Do you know what no God looks like? Nothing. There can't be anything without God. This whole topic is nonsense.

See, that isn't ever going to happen, because we have a great deal more invested in this than the God denier.

Maybe atheists should abandon their abominable superstition and confess that God exists. Because functionally that would make a huge difference in constructive dialog and world peace.

You could say the same about theism, because theism and deism are the same word in different languages. 

But atheism and deism are completely different. They literally mean the opposite. One is belief in the existence of God or gods. The other is a lack of belief or an outright denial of the existence of God or gods.

But deism certainly does support the theology of God or gods existing. It doesn't necessarily support a particular theology. 

Really though, politics is in the sorriest state it has ever been. Maybe a sign that we are in for some drastic changes in the near future. I am not terribly optimistic.