The Scandal of Particularity cas I understand it is the belief in the uniqueness of Christianity as a religion with the ability to save people. That is a natural and necessary follow on from the doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation,and the Atonement, which is why I can't fully embrace them.
That is not really the meaning of the scandal of particularity as I understand it. My understanding is that the traditional meaning is the concept that the Second Person of the Trinity was incarnate as a particular person at a particular time in a particular place and culture, and yet that this constituted the definitive divine revelation for all times, places and cultures.
Like @Lamb Chopped, I’ve seen the term used in a number of different but related ideas, including the one you’ve given. What you are describing (sort of) is the uniqueness of Christ as the way to salvation.
In addition to what @Dafyd said, I’d note that Paul also said that God in Christ was reconciling the world to himself—not “believers,” but the world.
The idea of particularity is found in other religions, for example, the notion that each detail of life contains the whole, found in parts of Buddhism. In fact, also in Sufism and Hinduism. "Samsara is nirvana" is only one version of it.
@Nick Tamen I stand corrected on definitions. Yet it still means Jesus is the only way. I don't fully subscribe to that view. I think a few, though not many, great souls have made unusual connections with God.
@KarlLB, 'wave-particle duality. We know light isn't really either', do we?
Yes, we do, because waves and particles have some contradictory properties so a single thing cannot really be both.
Why not?
Because squares can't be circles.
OK. Is light matter, or energy?
Matter, or more correctly mass, is energy. That's what underlies E=mc^2.
Light has zero rest mass but with gamma factor approaching infinity as speed approaches c, it has finite relativistic mass.
Uh huh. Isn't the energy that of force particles? Like photons. Einstein's light particles. Aka quantum field excitations. There's no such thing as energy ever by itself is there.
I understand it in the way @Nick Tamen has outlined it.
I don't want to muddy the waters, but forgive me @pablito1954, but how you outline things sounds very 'Protestant' to me - all this st8ff about 'giving assent' to particular doctrines or 'accepting Christ.'
I don't say that to dismiss or insult Protestants, far from it, but I think what we can see with Protestant posters like @Lamb Chopped and Nick himself is a more 'immersive' and holistic approach.
It's not just about giving mental assent to a set of propositions.
We commemorated St Simeon the New Theologian in the Orthodox calendar the other day. There are only a few Orthodox Saints who carry the 'Theologian' title. In Orthodox terms it doesn't refer to academic theologising but 'direct' or 'affective' experience of God.
Think 'hesychasm' and the Uncreated Light and such.
Yes, Orthodox liturgies contain denunciation of Arius and celebrations of particular hierarchy and Fathers seen as instrumental in preserving Trinitarian doctrine etc etc but it's not a tick-box exercise.
Orthodoxy insists on particular creedal formularies of course but we do see it as our business to pontificate on the eternal destiny of people of other churches or other faiths.
I understand how your fundamentalist evangelical background has left its mark, @pablito1954 but I'm not going to let your evangelical cousin or whoever it is determine what I believe.
@Gamma Gamaliel I assure you that I don't allow people such as my cousin determine what I believe either. I have recently taken on the help of a spiritual director to enable me to develop my prayer life. One thing she keeps having to do is assure me that having doubts and questions doesn't mean I'm lacking as a Christian. This really is a throwback to my evangelical origins. It's hard to fully escape from a background in which you spent your formative years.
Of course. I'm still working my way out of that sort of thinking, and my background probably wasn't quite as fundamentalist as yours.
What I was getting at was a similar point to the one @Nick Tamen was making. You seemed to be projecting a 20th century fundamentalist evangelical approach back into church history.
@Gamma Gamaliel If the man Jesus of Nazareth is the Second Person of the Trinity, if he is the only ever Incarnation of God, and if he died, in a cosmic Atonement, then a literal interpretation of "no one comes to the Father but by me" is indeed required. That is the Scandal of Particularity which is problematic to me. It goes totally against my Perennialist instincts.
This quote may or may not be of help to you:
"We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him."
--C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
FWIW and this has come up before, the Orthodox position seems to be along the lines that full-on dogmatic universalism is somewhat presumptuous and teetering on heretical.
However, as a matter of personal opinion it may be possible to hope that all may be saved but not say for definite that all shall be saved.
At least that's how I understand it.
What we don't tend to do - although I've known some more fundie style Orthoes do so - is speculate as to whether this, that or the other individual of whatever faith or none will ultimately be lost or saved.
It's not like the reductionist evangelical thing of 'accepting Christ' or 'praying the sinners' prayer' and so on - and certainly not all evangelicals are as reductionist as that either.
That said, of course, you do get people with a rather superstitious approach to the sacraments or to folk-religious practices.
But Lewis is popular with the Orthodox and most would be comfortable with the sort of position he adopted on this.
If/when we are reconciled with God, it will be through the mediion of the Second Person, by whatever name we know it. That is how I deal with particularity.
There are certainly two types of universalist. There are those who believe that all salvation comes through the mediation of the Second Person of the Trinity. There's also the more Perennialist view that, at the core of all authentic religions, properly followed, there is a salvific element. That's a paradox I've never resolved to my own satisfaction.
On the one hand, as @KarlLB pointed out, it's very patronising telling a Buddhist who is following the Noble Eightfold Path to Nirvana that what he believes is a load of tosh, but he's still saved on my terms. Or to tell a Jew, as Christians have done for 2,000 years, that his covenant with God has been abrogated by ours. He may sincerely believe that his covenant is still valid.
On the other hand, a perennialst view necessarily devalues the role of Jesus Christ in the process of Atonement. Perhaps, as @Eirenist has suggested, the mediation of the Second Person can be seen from different perspectives in different cultures. All salvation has to come from God, however we understand what God is and means.
@Gamma Gamaliel Actually I'm very close to the Orthodox view of universalism. Although I've been a universalist for more than half a century, it is modified by my acknowledgement of God's sovereignty. As God said to Job, "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?" ( Job 38.4)
The extreme view I had of universalism was another thing conditioned by all the hell fire preaching I grew up with. It's still what I deeply believe, but God's long term plan of creation is beyond my understanding, so it comes back to "not my will, but Yours be done" trusting that God will get it right.
On the one hand, as KarlLB pointed out, it's very patronising telling a Buddhist who is following the Noble Eightfold Path to Nirvana that what he believes is a load of tosh, but he's still saved on my terms. Or to tell a Jew, as Christians have done for 2,000 years, that his covenant with God has been abrogated by ours. He may sincerely believe that his covenant is still valid.
I think that's a false dichotomy. Conservative evangelicalism puts a lot of emphasis on justification and salvation, and not much on sanctification - and tends to think that all religions are the same and primarily answers to the question of how can we be saved. But I think other religions are at least as much about practices of sanctification - and those aren't invalidated just because salvation is through Jesus.
(I think Christianity and Buddhism have different anthropologies - Buddhism tends to think all desire leads to suffering whereas Christianity, even in someone as negative about human nature as Augustine, thinks desire is intrinsically positive as long as it is aimed at the right objects in the right way. But that is a question for debate among those of advanced spiritual practice, which I am not.)
I'm not either, but suspect there is much in what you say, @Dafyd.
Meanwhile, forgive me @pablito1954 but you still seem to be framing things in conservative evangelical Protestant terms, even in an 'oppositional' way.
I can understand why you are doing that, given your background, but you seem to be defining your beliefs in terms of what you are 'against' rather than what you are 'for' - and projecting similar concerns not only onto other Christian traditions but other faiths.
Not even fellow Protestant Christians posting on this thread would necessarily buy into or recognise the views you are attacking let alone RCs, Orthodox and still less people from Jewish or Buddhist paradigms.
Even in opposition you seem to be casting everything in contemporary conservative evangelical terms.
On the paradox thing - well yes, join the club. If we are along to deal with orthodox or Orthodox Christian faith to any reflective extent then we are going to have to learn to live with paradox. The Trinity and Incarnation for a start.
A Greek lad once observed to me that embracing Orthodoxy involved becoming comfortable with paradox. That doesn't happen overnight.
Neither does it with small o orthodox positions either.
Again - and Lord forgive me for my inconsistency and sin - it's about 'indwelling' and living out the Gospel not juggling propositions and trying to reconcile them - although we all do that of course.
It's not for me to judge how well or how consistently a Rabbi or a Buddhist spiritual instructor live out or practice their faith. That's God's business and theirs, not mine.
I'm wondering if the Trinity links Jesus's concept of God: 'Our Father in heaven ' with his own Ascension into heaven after his resurrection and with the promised Holy Spirit coming to and abiding with the very beginnings of the Church at Pentecost. After which we can pray 'to the Father, through the Son, and in the power of the Holy Spirit '.
Don't think I'll ever get beyond such a simplistic understanding.
As almost always I very much agree with GG. We are all in some way affected by our own spiritual journeys. What we have learned from our parents, our family, our community in our early days and very much so also in our adolescence remains with us as the 'standard' which we either agree with or try to deviate from, but which is nevertheless always there in the background.,no matter how much we adapt our religious beliefs.
As an adolescent I was greatly influenced by a play by the German playwright Lessing called Nathan der Weise. It is set in the Holy Land at the time of the Crusades. Nathan is a Jew who has a Christian girl as a ward. The Sultan asks him why he does not get the girl to convert to Judaism or if he believes that the girl's beliefs are true why he doesn't convert to Christianity,
Nathan tells the Sultan that he has taken his religion from his parents, just as the Sultan has done from his parents. In the same way he must respect for his ward the religion which has been given to his ward by her loving parents.
He tells also to the Sultan the 'Parable of the Three Rings', a story which has been known in many religions.
I think of the Second Person of the Trinity as God 'reaching out' to us, to used a currently fashionable expression. As to the Third Person, who is God within us, I am increasingly inclined to believe that it is inborn in everyone, but needs to be nourished by the Second Person to come to fruition and eventual union with the fullness of God. This is no doubt a heresy, but I doubt if God cares.
It sounds reminiscent of Quaker teaching about a divine spark within everyone, as it were.
I can't remember how the Friends put it but something like, 'That which is of God in everyone.'
Which isn't a million miles from some emphases within Orthodoxy.
We could get into the essence/energies thing here.
But no, I don't have an issue with the idea of the divine image within people being quickened or brought to fruition by the action of the Holy Spirit - and as the Persons of the Holy and Undivided Trinity act in unison then yes, the Father and the Son are involved in that too.
What might be heretical is the idea that our 'spirit' is the same s the Holy Spirit rather than a human 'spirit' seeking unity with the divine.
But I'm not sure that's what you are saying and besides it's not my place to set myself as the arbiter of what is and isn't heretical.
I'm wondering if the Trinity links Jesus's concept of God: 'Our Father in heaven ' with his own Ascension into heaven after his resurrection and with the promised Holy Spirit coming to and abiding with the very beginnings of the Church at Pentecost. After which we can pray 'to the Father, through the Son, and in the power of the Holy Spirit '.
Don't think I'll ever get beyond such a simplistic understanding.
It can be a blessing if you don’t feel any need to wade deeper into certain theological conundrums. That’s where I am with the filioque. When I say it, what’s in the back of my mind is simply Jesus’s promise to return to the Father and send the Spirit, and that’s enough for me. I don’t think we know enough for me at least to safely go a whole lot further.
It becomes an issue if we see the Holy Spirit 'originating' from the time he was 'sent' rather than eternally preceding from the Father. But then, I'm not sure I know anyone who actually believes that and it's certainly not what I believed when I used to say the Creed in its 'Western' form.
But then, I don't really see what the 'filioque' brings to the table either. It just causes confusion.
Indeed not. That's not how I understand it either - nor how i understood it before I was Orthodox. Which is rather the point I was making ... because, it seems to me, this is how some of the more 'rigourist' Orthodox controversalists misrepresent the issue.
Which 'passage' are you referring to, by the way? John 12?
There are other references of course. FWIW, I may start a thread on the filioque at some point but for the time being suffice it to say that whilst I believe there are good grounds to reject it, I don't believe that everyone who uses it are going to hell in a hand-cart.
I haven't yet worked out what I mean, Gamma G. This is work in progress. Perhaps the divine spark within us is reunited with the Godhead by the transmuting action action of the Holy Spirit? I have a Quaker son-in-law, by the way.
I'm wondering if the Trinity links Jesus's concept of God: 'Our Father in heaven ' with his own Ascension into heaven after his resurrection and with the promised Holy Spirit coming to and abiding with the very beginnings of the Church at Pentecost. After which we can pray 'to the Father, through the Son, and in the power of the Holy Spirit '.
Don't think I'll ever get beyond such a simplistic understanding.
It can be a blessing if you don’t feel any need to wade deeper into certain theological conundrums. That’s where I am with the filioque. When I say it, what’s in the back of my mind is simply Jesus’s promise to return to the Father and send the Spirit, and that’s enough for me. I don’t think we know enough for me at least to safely go a whole lot further.
Indeed not. That's not how I understand it either - nor how i understood it before I was Orthodox. Which is rather the point I was making ... because, it seems to me, this is how some of the more 'rigourist' Orthodox controversalists misrepresent the issue.
Which 'passage' are you referring to, by the way? John 12?
I think of the Second Person of the Trinity as God 'reaching out' to us, to used a currently fashionable expression. As to the Third Person, who is God within us, I am increasingly inclined to believe that it is inborn in everyone, but needs to be nourished by the Second Person to come to fruition and eventual union with the fullness of God. This is no doubt a heresy, but I doubt if God cares.
To the extent that all heresies reflect human speculation, I'm pretty confident He would be considerably less concerned about correctness of the doctrine than the behaviour of all those involved in discussing / arguing / shedding blood over the question of who's "right".
I think of the Second Person of the Trinity as God 'reaching out' to us, to used a currently fashionable expression. As to the Third Person, who is God within us, I am increasingly inclined to believe that it is inborn in everyone, but needs to be nourished by the Second Person to come to fruition and eventual union with the fullness of God. This is no doubt a heresy, but I doubt if God cares.
To the extent that all heresies reflect human speculation, I'm pretty confident He would be considerably less concerned about correctness of the doctrine than the behaviour of all those involved in discussing / arguing / shedding blood over the question of who's "right".
Of that I am absolutely sure. Given the contradictory scriptures and traditions we have, I can only think either (a) they have no divine inspiration anyway, or (b) God isn't particularly interested in our knowledge of or assent to doctrine.
This idea that 'God isn't particularly interested in our knowledge of or assent to doctrine ' was in the back of my mind when I started the Kerg thread on 'accepting the Kingdom like a little child'.
As an Orthodox Christian of course, I am concerned about things being ... well, orthodox or Orthodox.
That doesn't mean I believe we should go around booting people about over these things nor that the Almighty is more concerned about doctrinal correctness than the way we treat each other.
Has anyone so far said that Christ is the hardest person of the Trinity for them to relate to?
I’m furious that God chose to incarnate into a male body, when men are responsible for almost all the violence and rape in the world. I have a male body and am I feel like I am a threat to the world because of it. I have dreamed since childhood of a world that evolves scientifically so that men are no longer necessary (nothing bad would happen to men, but no one would be willing to reproduce with them anymore , so they would just stop existing after a few generations).
And so many people justify the oppression of women in Christianity on the fact that Jesus was/is a man.
You might consider the possibility that he did so to redeem it. Speaking as a woman, it’s nice to have one man to be close to that you know absolutely would never, could never, abuse you. A beginning at righting ancient wrongs.
It will be argued, of course that he didn't do a good job of it given the prevalence of toxic masculinity and abuse, in clerical circles and elsewhere.
'The man Christ Jesus' would never abuse but sadly many of his apparent representatives do.
I'm not convinced that scientific emasculation is the answer. Origen apparently took a somewhat drastic step in a rather unscientifiic way and found that didn't solve the problem.
But yes, potentially there's scope for redemption, even the righting of ancient wrongs.
We are going to get accusations of 'imaginary friends' and so on soon. I can feel it in my bones.
I have a male body and am I feel like I am a threat to the world because of it. I have dreamed since childhood of a world that evolves scientifically so that men are no longer necessary (nothing bad would happen to men, but no one would be willing to reproduce with them anymore , so they would just stop existing after a few generations).
I mean no offense here, but I am sorry you feel that way, and I hope that that world never comes to pass. I would not want to live in it.
Yes. Not that I object to robust objections or even sarcastic comments. Heck, it's not as if I'm squeaky-clean in that respect.
But I was anticipating @Lamb Chopped getting some stick for saying that she could 'get close' to Christ as one male who was never going to be abusive.
I'll go further. As well as objecting to recent comments about the Virgin Mary on the grounds of misogyny and anti-semitism, I also found them quite 'hurtful' in terms of impugning the reputation of someone I respect, admire and indeed venerate.
Sooner or later in any of these discussions, no matter how prim, proper and objective we try to be, the 'personal' and relational element will kick in - whether in an apophatic or cataphatic way.
There can be pain on both sides, a sense of discomfort and 'disconnect' on the part of those of no faith or who have lost their faith, particularly if others sound blithely content to carry on regardless, and corresponding emotions among those of faith if they feel cherished beliefs are being got at, impugned or undermined.
But that’s part of it, I suppose. That's what debate involves. And we are all the stronger for it provided we engage respectfully.
As an Orthodox Christian of course, I am concerned about things being ... well, orthodox or Orthodox.
That doesn't mean I believe we should go around booting people about over these things nor that the Almighty is more concerned about doctrinal correctness than the way we treat each other.
So what does it mean for you?
To my mind, there's a difference between being orthodox and Orthodox in relation to doctrine - the former relates to the principle that "correctness" in doctrine is something that matters (and the latter relates to a particular collection of doctrines being correct).
It seems that the correctness of doctrine is important to you, I just have no idea why.
Good question. Is it important for the rules to be adhered to in a football match? Or trading standards to be observed in retail?
I think we need to establish, though, that 'correctness of doctrine' shouldn't be seen as some kind of geeky academic exercise, still less as a stick with which to beat other people over the head.
We need orthodoxy and orthopraxy - whether small o or Big O. We are always going to struggle to achieve those. Hence the Orthodox 'economia' thing. It's not a get-out-of-jail-free card.
By the very nature of these boards the only interaction people here have with me is over theological or doctrinal discussions or my sounding off about something or other.
That probably gives the impression that I spent 99% of my waking hours mithering about doctrinal correctness. I don't.
Sure, as soon as you belong to something that calls itself the Orthodox Church then you are immediately implying that there are churches which are small o orthodox or heterodox or heretical - or mixtures of each.
But then, there's an expectation if you call yourself Pentecostal or Reformed or whatever else.
It's hard to define or express sometimes what draws us to particular expressions of faith. I like the sense of tradition (Tradition) and continuity as well as the sense of the Church Triumphant - the great cloud of witnesses - the iconography and the regular rhythm of the liturgical year, which you find in Orthodoxy.
RCs and Anglo-Catholics would no doubt say the same.
It does operate on a 'mystical' level but that doesn't necessarily imply heebie-geebie experiences.
I get the distinction you are making between orthodoxy and Orthodoxy but would see it as both/and not either/or. There is room for different views and theological opinions within Big O Orthodoxy and we don't dogmatise on a great deal, although it doesn't always feel that way at times.
FWIW I'd generally be seen as inclining towards the more liberal and ecumenical end of the Orthodox spectrum.
At any rate, it can be hard to tell why particular things are important to people, especially if we don't feel the same sense of importance towards these things ourselves.
I hope I don't give the impression that I'm some kind of doctrinal policeman. Heaven forfend! I am a stickler for Trinitarian doctrine though, which doesn't mean I've got it all sussed.
Comments
OK. Is light matter, or energy?
Like @Lamb Chopped, I’ve seen the term used in a number of different but related ideas, including the one you’ve given. What you are describing (sort of) is the uniqueness of Christ as the way to salvation.
In addition to what @Dafyd said, I’d note that Paul also said that God in Christ was reconciling the world to himself—not “believers,” but the world.
Matter, or more correctly mass, is energy. That's what underlies E=mc^2.
Light has zero rest mass but with gamma factor approaching infinity as speed approaches c, it has finite relativistic mass.
Uh huh. Isn't the energy that of force particles? Like photons. Einstein's light particles. Aka quantum field excitations. There's no such thing as energy ever by itself is there.
I don't want to muddy the waters, but forgive me @pablito1954, but how you outline things sounds very 'Protestant' to me - all this st8ff about 'giving assent' to particular doctrines or 'accepting Christ.'
I don't say that to dismiss or insult Protestants, far from it, but I think what we can see with Protestant posters like @Lamb Chopped and Nick himself is a more 'immersive' and holistic approach.
It's not just about giving mental assent to a set of propositions.
We commemorated St Simeon the New Theologian in the Orthodox calendar the other day. There are only a few Orthodox Saints who carry the 'Theologian' title. In Orthodox terms it doesn't refer to academic theologising but 'direct' or 'affective' experience of God.
Think 'hesychasm' and the Uncreated Light and such.
Yes, Orthodox liturgies contain denunciation of Arius and celebrations of particular hierarchy and Fathers seen as instrumental in preserving Trinitarian doctrine etc etc but it's not a tick-box exercise.
Orthodoxy insists on particular creedal formularies of course but we do see it as our business to pontificate on the eternal destiny of people of other churches or other faiths.
I understand how your fundamentalist evangelical background has left its mark, @pablito1954 but I'm not going to let your evangelical cousin or whoever it is determine what I believe.
What I was getting at was a similar point to the one @Nick Tamen was making. You seemed to be projecting a 20th century fundamentalist evangelical approach back into church history.
This quote may or may not be of help to you:
However, as a matter of personal opinion it may be possible to hope that all may be saved but not say for definite that all shall be saved.
At least that's how I understand it.
What we don't tend to do - although I've known some more fundie style Orthoes do so - is speculate as to whether this, that or the other individual of whatever faith or none will ultimately be lost or saved.
It's not like the reductionist evangelical thing of 'accepting Christ' or 'praying the sinners' prayer' and so on - and certainly not all evangelicals are as reductionist as that either.
That said, of course, you do get people with a rather superstitious approach to the sacraments or to folk-religious practices.
But Lewis is popular with the Orthodox and most would be comfortable with the sort of position he adopted on this.
On the one hand, as @KarlLB pointed out, it's very patronising telling a Buddhist who is following the Noble Eightfold Path to Nirvana that what he believes is a load of tosh, but he's still saved on my terms. Or to tell a Jew, as Christians have done for 2,000 years, that his covenant with God has been abrogated by ours. He may sincerely believe that his covenant is still valid.
On the other hand, a perennialst view necessarily devalues the role of Jesus Christ in the process of Atonement. Perhaps, as @Eirenist has suggested, the mediation of the Second Person can be seen from different perspectives in different cultures. All salvation has to come from God, however we understand what God is and means.
The extreme view I had of universalism was another thing conditioned by all the hell fire preaching I grew up with. It's still what I deeply believe, but God's long term plan of creation is beyond my understanding, so it comes back to "not my will, but Yours be done" trusting that God will get it right.
(I think Christianity and Buddhism have different anthropologies - Buddhism tends to think all desire leads to suffering whereas Christianity, even in someone as negative about human nature as Augustine, thinks desire is intrinsically positive as long as it is aimed at the right objects in the right way. But that is a question for debate among those of advanced spiritual practice, which I am not.)
Meanwhile, forgive me @pablito1954 but you still seem to be framing things in conservative evangelical Protestant terms, even in an 'oppositional' way.
I can understand why you are doing that, given your background, but you seem to be defining your beliefs in terms of what you are 'against' rather than what you are 'for' - and projecting similar concerns not only onto other Christian traditions but other faiths.
Not even fellow Protestant Christians posting on this thread would necessarily buy into or recognise the views you are attacking let alone RCs, Orthodox and still less people from Jewish or Buddhist paradigms.
Even in opposition you seem to be casting everything in contemporary conservative evangelical terms.
On the paradox thing - well yes, join the club. If we are along to deal with orthodox or Orthodox Christian faith to any reflective extent then we are going to have to learn to live with paradox. The Trinity and Incarnation for a start.
A Greek lad once observed to me that embracing Orthodoxy involved becoming comfortable with paradox. That doesn't happen overnight.
Neither does it with small o orthodox positions either.
Again - and Lord forgive me for my inconsistency and sin - it's about 'indwelling' and living out the Gospel not juggling propositions and trying to reconcile them - although we all do that of course.
It's not for me to judge how well or how consistently a Rabbi or a Buddhist spiritual instructor live out or practice their faith. That's God's business and theirs, not mine.
Don't think I'll ever get beyond such a simplistic understanding.
As an adolescent I was greatly influenced by a play by the German playwright Lessing called Nathan der Weise. It is set in the Holy Land at the time of the Crusades. Nathan is a Jew who has a Christian girl as a ward. The Sultan asks him why he does not get the girl to convert to Judaism or if he believes that the girl's beliefs are true why he doesn't convert to Christianity,
Nathan tells the Sultan that he has taken his religion from his parents, just as the Sultan has done from his parents. In the same way he must respect for his ward the religion which has been given to his ward by her loving parents.
He tells also to the Sultan the 'Parable of the Three Rings', a story which has been known in many religions.
I can't remember how the Friends put it but something like, 'That which is of God in everyone.'
Which isn't a million miles from some emphases within Orthodoxy.
We could get into the essence/energies thing here.
But no, I don't have an issue with the idea of the divine image within people being quickened or brought to fruition by the action of the Holy Spirit - and as the Persons of the Holy and Undivided Trinity act in unison then yes, the Father and the Son are involved in that too.
What might be heretical is the idea that our 'spirit' is the same s the Holy Spirit rather than a human 'spirit' seeking unity with the divine.
But I'm not sure that's what you are saying and besides it's not my place to set myself as the arbiter of what is and isn't heretical.
It can be a blessing if you don’t feel any need to wade deeper into certain theological conundrums. That’s where I am with the filioque. When I say it, what’s in the back of my mind is simply Jesus’s promise to return to the Father and send the Spirit, and that’s enough for me. I don’t think we know enough for me at least to safely go a whole lot further.
But then, I don't really see what the 'filioque' brings to the table either. It just causes confusion.
Which 'passage' are you referring to, by the way? John 12?
There are other references of course. FWIW, I may start a thread on the filioque at some point but for the time being suffice it to say that whilst I believe there are good grounds to reject it, I don't believe that everyone who uses it are going to hell in a hand-cart.
But that's for another time.
Why would it be dangerous?
John 14:16-17 and other places...
Of that I am absolutely sure. Given the contradictory scriptures and traditions we have, I can only think either (a) they have no divine inspiration anyway, or (b) God isn't particularly interested in our knowledge of or assent to doctrine.
As an Orthodox Christian of course, I am concerned about things being ... well, orthodox or Orthodox.
That doesn't mean I believe we should go around booting people about over these things nor that the Almighty is more concerned about doctrinal correctness than the way we treat each other.
Has anyone so far said that Christ is the hardest person of the Trinity for them to relate to?
I’m furious that God chose to incarnate into a male body, when men are responsible for almost all the violence and rape in the world. I have a male body and am I feel like I am a threat to the world because of it. I have dreamed since childhood of a world that evolves scientifically so that men are no longer necessary (nothing bad would happen to men, but no one would be willing to reproduce with them anymore , so they would just stop existing after a few generations).
And so many people justify the oppression of women in Christianity on the fact that Jesus was/is a man.
Can I even be a Christian?
Ok, I know it's more complicated than that.
But why just male human beings? What about male mammals, fish, reptiles, birds, insects?
'The man Christ Jesus' would never abuse but sadly many of his apparent representatives do.
I'm not convinced that scientific emasculation is the answer. Origen apparently took a somewhat drastic step in a rather unscientifiic way and found that didn't solve the problem.
But yes, potentially there's scope for redemption, even the righting of ancient wrongs.
We are going to get accusations of 'imaginary friends' and so on soon. I can feel it in my bones.
I mean no offense here, but I am sorry you feel that way, and I hope that that world never comes to pass. I would not want to live in it.
Oh, I hope not. We've had that sort of thing on so many other threads, and it derails the conversation.
I take this to mean anti-theistic posters coming in and mocking the idea of relating to members of the Trinity in this way.
But I was anticipating @Lamb Chopped getting some stick for saying that she could 'get close' to Christ as one male who was never going to be abusive.
I'll go further. As well as objecting to recent comments about the Virgin Mary on the grounds of misogyny and anti-semitism, I also found them quite 'hurtful' in terms of impugning the reputation of someone I respect, admire and indeed venerate.
Sooner or later in any of these discussions, no matter how prim, proper and objective we try to be, the 'personal' and relational element will kick in - whether in an apophatic or cataphatic way.
There can be pain on both sides, a sense of discomfort and 'disconnect' on the part of those of no faith or who have lost their faith, particularly if others sound blithely content to carry on regardless, and corresponding emotions among those of faith if they feel cherished beliefs are being got at, impugned or undermined.
But that’s part of it, I suppose. That's what debate involves. And we are all the stronger for it provided we engage respectfully.
To my mind, there's a difference between being orthodox and Orthodox in relation to doctrine - the former relates to the principle that "correctness" in doctrine is something that matters (and the latter relates to a particular collection of doctrines being correct).
It seems that the correctness of doctrine is important to you, I just have no idea why.
I think we need to establish, though, that 'correctness of doctrine' shouldn't be seen as some kind of geeky academic exercise, still less as a stick with which to beat other people over the head.
We need orthodoxy and orthopraxy - whether small o or Big O. We are always going to struggle to achieve those. Hence the Orthodox 'economia' thing. It's not a get-out-of-jail-free card.
By the very nature of these boards the only interaction people here have with me is over theological or doctrinal discussions or my sounding off about something or other.
That probably gives the impression that I spent 99% of my waking hours mithering about doctrinal correctness. I don't.
Sure, as soon as you belong to something that calls itself the Orthodox Church then you are immediately implying that there are churches which are small o orthodox or heterodox or heretical - or mixtures of each.
But then, there's an expectation if you call yourself Pentecostal or Reformed or whatever else.
It's hard to define or express sometimes what draws us to particular expressions of faith. I like the sense of tradition (Tradition) and continuity as well as the sense of the Church Triumphant - the great cloud of witnesses - the iconography and the regular rhythm of the liturgical year, which you find in Orthodoxy.
RCs and Anglo-Catholics would no doubt say the same.
It does operate on a 'mystical' level but that doesn't necessarily imply heebie-geebie experiences.
I get the distinction you are making between orthodoxy and Orthodoxy but would see it as both/and not either/or. There is room for different views and theological opinions within Big O Orthodoxy and we don't dogmatise on a great deal, although it doesn't always feel that way at times.
FWIW I'd generally be seen as inclining towards the more liberal and ecumenical end of the Orthodox spectrum.
At any rate, it can be hard to tell why particular things are important to people, especially if we don't feel the same sense of importance towards these things ourselves.
I hope I don't give the impression that I'm some kind of doctrinal policeman. Heaven forfend! I am a stickler for Trinitarian doctrine though, which doesn't mean I've got it all sussed.