/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

I mean it would depend on what things you disagree on, lots of stuff is just up to Theological opinion in Orthodoxy. Can you give an example of something you disagree with?

>>602185

>Other religions are also efficacious (lite perennialism)

>no eternal hell

>reincarnation is (probably) real

>don't believe our nature is inherently sinful, i.e. sin is something we are afflicted with but not part of our essential nature

>don't believe in creation ex nihilo

>world is probably billions of years old (don't believe in evolution though)

there's probably more that I can't think of

>>602187

>>Other religions are also efficacious (lite perennialism)

Efficacious for what? they all contain elements of truth from memories after the flood, or from what they can discern with their spiritual and rational faculties

>>no eternal hell

Anathema

>>reincarnation is (probably) real

Anathema and retarded

>>don't believe our nature is inherently sinful, i.e. sin is something we are afflicted with but not part of our essential nature

Read more on what Orthodox think of Original sin i don't think you actually understand what it is.

>>don't believe in creation ex nihilo

Anathema and retarded

>>world is probably billions of years old (don't believe in evolution though)

This is fine

For the ones which are anathema i would recommend that you look at why we don't believe these things. Christianity is a whole system and there are reasons why you cannot believe these things or you are de-facto not a Christian. Why do you want to be formally attached to a church you don't agree with?

>>602191

For example Reincarnation goes against the resurrection of Jesus Christ since he resurrected into his own body. And if you don't believe Jesus was raised from the dead then you aren't Christian you are some Gnostic.

>>602191

>Efficacious for what?

Their rituals "work", they produce spiritual fruit, and following these religions is also salvific

>no eternal hell = anathema

It's an insane idea, though. No matter how bad you've been I can't see how you'd deserve that.

>Read more on what Orthodox think of Original sin i don't think you actually understand what it is.

I imagine you are probably right about this, I'll look into it.

>no creation ex nihilo = anathema

I believe in a prima materia (pure potentiality) from which the world was created. It just makes more sense. Technically potentiality isn't a "thing" so maybe that would still qualify as creation ex nihilo.

>reincarnation = anathema

I'm not totally sold on it, but it seems reasonable to believe that we periodically return to continue in our struggle for perfection. Idk, though.

>if you don't believe Jesus was raised from the dead

I have no issue with that. I don't know for certain whether he was or wasn't because I wasn't there, but the evidence for it is fairly strong.

>>602187

You're literally not Christian.

>>602206

I know, but I can't really help it. Sorry.

>>602187

There is only one truth. The irony is that you yourself are claiming your own version of absolute truth with this list of beliefs. Your beliefs are not compatible with any religion or belief system besides maybe universalism. Like I said, at the end of the day there is only one truth and one way to salvation, and you've admitted to being commited to your own, self made religion.

Anecodatly speaking, I find that people are resistant to God and the Bible when they have an inconsistent, corrupted or distorted view of who God really is and what the Bible actually teaches. If you're willing to concede with the admition of not knowing everything, and earnestly seek the truth with God, then it is in my belief that He will reveal Himself to you and make known to you His truths.

>>602196

>It's an insane idea, though. No matter how bad you've been I can't see how you'd deserve that.

Hell isn't a punishment for being a naughty boi, it is the reality of your ontological disposition towards God. if you hate God then being in his presence is suffering, or at least this is the Orthodox veiw. hell is locked from the inside.

>I believe in a prima materia (pure potentiality) from which the world was created. It just makes more sense. Technically potentiality isn't a "thing" so maybe that would still qualify as creation ex nihilo.

why do you think God isn't powerful to create the world from nothing? surely this God is no longer a true God but a meare architect of the universe.God has to have created from nothing because he is the thing which gives all things being in the first place from　where does this pre existing material derive its being?

>>602191

>no eternal hell

>anathema

>who are st. Isaac the Syrian and st Gregory of Nyssa

Nice LARPing

>>602245

who are you calling a LARPER? Universalism is a very tiny minority position in the Church and it may be heresy.

isaiah 66:24

>And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.

>>602239

>The irony is that you yourself are claiming your own version of absolute truth with this list of beliefs

Just to clarify, I don't hold on to those as a dogma. I'm just very sympathetic to those views.

>Your beliefs are not compatible with any religion or belief system

That's not true from what I've seen and read. It's quite compatible with Hindus and some Islamic Sufis (not neosufis, medieval era).

>when they have an inconsistent, corrupted or distorted view of who God really is

I definitely concede that this could be the case with me.

>concede with the admition of not knowing everything

Definitely, in fact I am maybe a little to comfortable with uncertainty. That's part of the reason I want to be Christian without necessarily believing in all of the dogmas. It's because I don't feel any rush to confirm them. I feel confident that on the whole Christianity is a very good religion, and a very profound one.

>>602243

>Hell isn't a punishment for being a naughty boi, it is the reality of your ontological disposition towards God. if you hate God then being in his presence is suffering

I've heard that explanation before but I don't really buy it. It's interesting to be sure. But, hate God? How many people actually hate God? I don't.

>why do you think God isn't powerful to create the world from nothing?

I just don't think it's a coherent idea. How can something come from nothing?

>he is the thing which gives all things being in the first place

prima materia technically does not have being.

It is pure potentiality. God actualizes it.　

>where does this pre existing material derive its being

It doesn't technically have being, as I've said. It's kind paradoxical I guess, and maybe no more coherent than creation ex nihilo, because if it has no being than how can I say that it IS? Still, something about creation ex nihilo doesn't sit right with me.

>>602249

this is for you:https://sites.google.com/site/phoenixlxineohp2/lettertoareaderofreneguenon

>How many people actually hate God? I don't.

This is because you have a very shallow veiw your inner being, i can say i hate God and intend to confess when i next get a chance to go to confession.

I do not love God. For if I loved God I should be continually thinking about Him with

heartfelt joy. Every thought of God would give me gladness and delight. On the contrary,

I much more often and much more eagerly think about earthly things, and thinking about

God is labor and dryness. If I loved God, then talking with Him in prayer would be my

nourishment and delight and would draw me to unbroken communion with Him. But, on

the contrary, I not only find no delight in prayer, but even find it an effort. I struggle with

reluctance, I am enfeebled by sloth, and am ready to occupy myself eagerly with any

unimportant trifle, if only it shortens prayer and keeps me from it. My time slips away

unnoticed in futile occupations, but when I am occupied with God, when I put myself

into His presence every hour seems like a year. If one person loves another, he thinks of

him throughout the day without ceasing, he pictures him to himself, he cares for him, and

in all circumstances his beloved friend is never out of his thoughts. But I, throughout the

day, scarcely set aside even a single hour in which to sink deep down into meditation

upon God, to inflame my heart with love of Him, while I eagerly give up twenty-three

hours as fervent offerings to the idols of my passions. I am forward in talk about

frivolous matters and things which degrade the spirit; that gives me pleasure. But in the

consideration of God I am dry, bored and lazy. Even if I am unwillingly drawn by others

into spiritual conversation, I try to shift the subject quickly to one which pleases my

desires. I am tirelessly curious about novelties, about civic affairs and political events; I

eagerly seek the satisfaction of my love of knowledge in science and art, and in ways of

getting things I want to possess. But the study of the Law of God, the knowledge of God

and of religion, make little impression on me, and satisfy no hunger of my soul. I regard

these things not only as a non-essential occupation for a Christian, but in a casual way as

a sort of side-issue with which I should perhaps occupy my spare time, at odd moments.

To put it shortly, if love for God is recognized by the keeping of His commandments (If

ye love Me, keep My commandments, says our Lord Jesus Christ), and I not only do not

keep them, but even make little attempt to do so, then in absolute truth the conclusion

follows that I do not love God. That is what Basil the Great says: 'The proof that a man

does not love God and His Christ lies in the fact that he does not keep His

commandments'.

>>602247

And yet, you are declaring St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Isaac the Syrian as Heretics, by outright declaring it as "le anathema", that has not been declared so by any church councils (>inb4 origenism. Origenism was declared as a heresy not because of that, but because of various factors, including preexistence of souls)

This is a theologoumena that exists in church and was accepted by several saints, meaning that its not a heresy. You may not accept it, but it is NOT a heresy.

>>602245

>2 saints were tainted by the Origenist heresy

Wow, you sure got him good there.

Saints are not perfect. Isaac the Syrian was a Nestorian and Gregory of Nyssa rejected the Revelation of John.

If one wants a recap of what the Fathers and the whole Church really believed, one needs to look no farther than the Three Holy Hierarchs.

Basil the Great:

>In one place the Lord declares that “these shall go to eternal punishment,", and in another place He sends some “to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels"; and speaks elsewhere of the fire of Gehenna, specifying that it is a place “where their worm dies not, and the fire is not extinguished” and even of old and through the Prophet it was foretold of some that “their worm will not die, nor will their fire be extinguished.". Although these and the like declarations are to be found in numerous places of divinely inspired Scripture, it is one of the artifices of the devil, that many forgetting these and other such statements and utterances of the Lord, ascribe an end to punishment, so that they can sin the more boldly. If, however, there were going to be an end of eternal punishment, there would likewise be an end to eternal life. If we cannot conceive of an end to that life, how are we to suppose there will be an end to eternal punishment? The qualification of “eternal” is ascribed equally to both of them. “For these are going,” He says, “into eternal punishment; the just, however, into eternal life.” If we profess these things we must recognize that the “he shall be flogged with many stripes” and the “he shall be flogged with few stripes” refer not to an end but to a distinction of punishment.

John Chrysostom:

>It is a sea of fire—not a sea of the kind or dimensions we know here, but much larger and fiercer, with waves made of fire, fire of a strange and fearsome kind. There is a great abyss there, in fact, of terrible flames, and one can see fire rushing about on all sides like some wild animal. . . . There will be no one who can resist, no one who can escape: Christ’s gentle, peaceful face will be nowhere to be seen. But as those sentenced to work the mines are give over to rough men and see no more of their families, but only their taskmasters, so it will be there—or not simply so, but much worse. For here on can appeal to the Emperor for clemency, and have the prisoner released—but there, never. They will not be released, but will remain roasting and in such agony as cannot be expressed.

Gehenna is eternal.

>>602255

Recent convert perhaps?

Apokastasis is one of the things Origen was condemned for.

And we have Arian saints too, do we remove them off the calendar because of this? No. Saints are not perfect.

But some saints are recognized as expressing Orthodox theology in a better way than others. We have the Cappadocian Fathers for Trinitarian theology, we have the three Theologians for an expression of the experience of the living God, we have the three Holy Hierarchs for a recap of all that we believe, we have the three Pillars of Orthodoxy in response to Latin heresies.

>>602259

>Recent convert perhaps?

I am Orthodox since birth and an altarman while at it.

And you are completely missing the point. You are ignoring saints that I mentioned while at the same time quoting another saints to support your view. (And extremely materialistc ones about damned and demons being roasted like shish-kebabs in hell).

My problem is that you outright declare a theologoumena that has supporters amongst saints as a heresy and anathematizing it, while you have absolutely no authority to do so.

If you would say that "this is a theologoumena not as supported in the church as theory about eternal hell", there wouldnt be a problem at all.

>>602254

I'll check out the letter thanks. I'm a reader of Rene Guenon, and I've also read some essays and excerpts from Seraphim Rose.

A question: is not loving God the same thing as hating him? Sure, I obviously don't love God with all my being, that's a very exalted state and I'm far beneath it, but I clearly don't HATE him, and I don't think you do either. In any case, the reason our mind so readily slips toward earthly things seems to be more of a matter of lack of mental discipline. Those things can be learned, with practice and with proper guidance. I don't think you should be hard on yourself for something you lack the adequate training for.

>>602187

Your evolution belief is quite frankly, the strangest theory I've ever heard to be honest.

Could you go a little more into depth?

>>602269

It's not as weird as it sounds. I think the evidence overwhelmingly shows that the universe is really old. On the other hand, I don't think the evidence for evolution is convincing. So how did all this complexity of life come about? I don't know. I think "I don't know" is really the most scientific answer you can give when you genuinely don't know. The genesis of life is still a mystery to be solved from my point of view.

>>602272

Fair enough.

>>602265

>A question: is not loving God the same thing as hating him

i guess so but loving God is the standard and in a way i think i may be more dangerous to be a small affirmer because you can be complacent. for example part of the problem with the passions or how they cause pain to people when they die is the fact they will still have these desires but no body to fulfill them with. so someone who thinks they don't hate God but doesn't love him is still in danger although i'm willing to say that the level of suffering experienced might be different. honestly i think you are on the right track and are going to get there in the end and will understand i used to be in a very similar situation to you with wantig to belive all these esoteric ideas and not being able to accept the teaching of the Church. Do you mind if you tell me your first name so i can pray for you? it is easier than an 8 chan ID.

>>602280

Daniel. Thanks. I hope your prayer is answered.

>>602178

Can any christian be orthodox? Orthodoxy is a titled reserved for perfection, so God and the church that mystical body of Christ. I think humans will probably always be heterodox as it is our fallen nature and we are only temporarily made orthodox when we meet God in the Eucharist.the most important thing is to not sin by intention, to always intend to be faithful to the truth even if you don't know what the truth is. All humans are corrupted thus thats why God gave us this church in order to be healed. So don't let that discourage you, but just deny yourself, get back up and take up your cross daily. Be like a little child when approaching the mysteries of faith. God bless

>>602185

>a lot of stuff is up to Theological opinion in Orthodoxy.

I know the east likes to use orthodox as a proper noun, but can't you see the contradiction here?

>>602285

Yeah, but what Church would accept me, given that I don't believe in the dogmas? I don't want to be a hypocrite and lie to myself about what I believe in, or lie to anyone else.

>>602287

Faith does not come from you but is a grace from God. All you do is accept him and consent to the holy spirit moving you to union with God. Best thing to do is genuinely pray for the grace of faith. The Catholic Church will accept you. As long as you keep consenting, the holy spirit will conform you to the will of God and make you perfect in Christ. Go to a parish and talk to a priest.

>>602282

ever actually looked into gnosticism orthobro? ive been seeing you posting that meme over and over again

just reminding you to not get your info in memes because if you ever encountered the real one you might not debate them properly

>>602279

Why are gn*stics so annoying?

>>602178

There was some denomination online quiz some Christanon posted a while back that gives you a list of denominations you best fit into given a set of answers you select. Other than that, Rick Wiles is a pretty solid source for Christian-related content at least here in America.

>>602303

lmao this guy does know not everyone with the Orthodox flag is the same persob? i ask again which book?

>>602303

Irenaeus's Against Heresies is sufficient to show the idiocy of gnosticism.

>>602309

the file name,nimrod

>>602315

still wrong nimrod, i downloaded that onto my phone last week and this is the first time i've posted it.

>>602187

> >Other religions are also efficacious (lite perennialism)

We cannot say with any certainty that anyone in particular is going to hell. But seeing as the internal logic of Islam inescapably concludes Allah sent Muhammad to hell, there is nothing in that absurdly self-contradictory religion that can save anyone. Same goes for the rest of the world religions.

> >no eternal hell

Those who hate God are tormented by His presence, so if there is no hell for them, then their hatred of God must be forcibly removed. If there is no hell, there is no freedom in the hearts of men.

> >reincarnation is (probably) real

What has you convinced?

> >don't believe our nature is inherently sinful, i.e. sin is something we are afflicted with but not part of our essential nature

This is good. Keep this view. This is orthodox.

> >don't believe in creation ex nihilo

The contingency of matter makes ex nihilo creation the only possibility. What has you thinking this?

> >world is probably billions of years old (don't believe in evolution though)

Yeah it might be. Probably is.

> there's probably more that I can't think of

>>602325

no you didnt

>>602331

Lol why are gnostics so mentally unstable they obsess over a image macro

>>602334

im a gnostic because you say so

>>602187

>Other religions are also efficacious (lite perennialism)

They are not. We know it by faith and by reason. By faith for Christ say "I am THE way" and "That there be ONE flock" and by reason for Truth cannot contridict Truth. And ech and evry one of othere religions contridict eachothere when it comes to sortielogy, theology etc. If they have somethign worthy in them it's from US.

>no eternal hell

Heterodox, dangerous, condemned. Hell is eternal for spirit's will is fixed i.e. cannot change ever. And if you die in will fixed against God (in mortal sin) God will let you be separated from him for eternity.

>reincarnation is (probably) real

Reincarnation was BTFO by Irenaeus and others so much that it never recovered. Read him.

>don't believe our nature is inherently sinful, i.e. sin is something we are afflicted with but not part of our essential nature

That is orthodox though.

>don't believe in creation ex nihilo

Heterodox,dangerous, condemned. We know it by faith and reason. By faith for Scripture says "God made them (everything) out of nothing". And by reason because there can b only one primodial, always existing, eternal substance and existence.

>world is probably billions of years old (don't believe in evolution though)

I am struggling with it myself really. But considering that entropy is a thing (world does not self organise), tectonic plates model works better with rapid movements, cosmic constants may as well not be so constant at all, and that axis of evil is a real thing in cosmology we have good reason to be YEC. Not to mention many many mystics.

>>602178

Heterodoxy is due to pride.

Hey, OP here, I'm back. I just want to reemphasize the original point of the thread. There's a reason I didn't mention any specific beliefs in the OP, and I honestly hesitated to even mention them when I was asked. That's because the question here is of a more general and philosophical nature. The question is how much leeway a person is given in (apostolic) Christianity in terms of heterodox beliefs, because it seems to me there is a kind of dilemma here: a belief isn't a choice in the same sense that any action is. We believe the things we believe because we find them convincing or compelling in some way, and until someone shows us our errors we can't really do otherwise. I see a lot lf good and profound things in Christianity (especially Ortho) and almost converted (well, almost became officially an Orthodox catechumen) at one point, but felt rotten about having so many beliefs outside the norm, and try as I might to adopt the standard Christian beliefs and drop my doubts I couldn't do it. I've had lots of online discussions on these questions so I'm not particularly inclined to go over that territory again. I will accept reading recommendations whether articles or books on the topics I've mentioned, but online discussions have already proven rather fruitless.

>>603864

This might be helpful OP, A lot of what you believe involves a lot of speculation about things which require special knowledge. This kind of knowledge requires a purity of heart to make sure that you aren't deluding yourself based on your own desires. Obviously joining the Church is not going to give you the answer to everything right away, but we offer a hospital for your broken soul and in time you will understand things in time. One of the main things i found compelling about Christianity is the idea that the Truth was no longer a passage in some arcane tome written somewhere but it was a person who is still very much alive, who brings the mystery of the eternal God into our finite experience . It starts with humility first though. apologies if this makes no sense

http://www.sv-luka.org/library/The_Mystery_of_Knowledge.htm

God bless

>>603916

>This kind of knowledge requires a purity of heart to make sure that you aren't deluding yourself based on your own desires.

I completely agree with you on that, which is why I find this whole dilemma so problematic. Who knows if I will ever be able to attain that kind of knowledge?

>Obviously joining the Church is not going to give you the answer to everything right away, but we offer a hospital for your broken soul and in time you will understand things in time.

Well, this brings me to the main question again: how can a person convert before he believes without being a hypocrite? If I convert without believing it's insincere, and in order to believe I need to understand many things which are unclear to me, and I don't know whether I will ever be able to do that.

>Truth was no longer a passage in some arcane tome written somewhere but it was a person who is still very much alive

Yes, this is one of the fascinating and profound things that bring me to Christianity. I haven't taken an interest in it for no reason. Thank you for the link. God bless you too.

>>603935

>Well, this brings me to the main question again: how can a person convert before he believes without being a hypocrite? If I convert without believing it's insincere, and in order to believe I need to understand many things which are unclear to me, and I don't know whether I will ever be able to do that.

Well this is just an idea, but you don't have to convert to attend Church. For example i attended Church before i believed in Christ's divinity for example. I think God also will help you i was sent Just the priest i needed i think. I explained to him my situation and after telling him I did understand the arguments but they didn't really mean much to me, and he just responded "you are never going to get anywhere like that." And then i understood what Fr Seraphim Rose was saying in his talk "God's Revelation To The Human Heart", and that night God gave me peace and i understood that i couldn't know everything and how to be ok with that. It is a hard to explain subjective experience, but essentially what was described in the link i gave you. The thing you have to understand is that all these ideas of Theosophy are just attempts by people to come close to truth in Christ, ultimately looking through this dim glass will get you no where. but if you are willing to lower yourself in front of God he can make things clear to you. Ultimately I think you are wrong about the idea that beliefs are something you have no control over. Why do you believe these things? Natural reason? even if that is the case you ultimately at some point have to do some kind of pascal's wager about it where you choose to believe something rather than something else. I think that what you need may not be refutations of your beliefs but something else, who knows maybe if you start attending the church there will be someone there who can give you what you need, people's beliefs change all the time; sometimes by our own accord and sometimes by God.

>Is there a special organ for receiving revelation from God? Yes, in a certain sense there is such an organ, though usually we close it and do not let it open up: God’s revelation is given to something called a loving heart. We know from the Scriptures that God is love; Christianity is the religion of love (you may look at the failures, see people who call themselves Christians and are not, and say there is no love there; but Christianity is indeed the religion of love when it is successful and practiced in the right way)… If you ask anyone who knew Archbishop John what it was that drew people to him - and still draws people who never knew him - the answer is always the same: he was overflowing with love; he sacrificed himself for his fellow men out of absolutely unselfish love for God and for them. This is why things were revealed to him which could not get through to other people and which he never could have known by natural means. He himself taught that, for all “mysticism” of our Orthodox Church that is found in the Lives of the Saints and the writings of the Orthodox Elders, the Orthodox faithful always has both feet firmly on the ground, facing whatever situation is right in front of him. It is in accepting given situations, which requires a loving heart, that man encounters God. This loving heart is why anyone comes to a knowledge of the truth…

>The opposite of the loving heart that receives revelation from God is cold calculation, getting what you can out of people; in religious life, this produces fakery and charlatanism of all descriptions. If you look at the religious world today, you see that a great deal of this is going on: so much fakery, posing, calculation, so much taking advantage of the winds of fashion…" […]

>>603864

Your biggest problem right now is that you came to ask the internet about this instead of asking your parish priest. Better yet, go ask your parish priest about the objects of your heterodoxy. See if he can convince you of the correct doctrine. If your questions aren't answered adequately, ask lay people, other priests, deacons. Heck, run down to the nearest monastery and ask the monks if you have to. You don't need a bunch of internet loons to answer questions like this.

>>602187

Not to sound rude, but tack on that life is suffering and mankind suffers because of cravings and you're literally Buddhist.

>>602187

this is not heterodoxy, this is mostly flat out heresy.

>>602342

>Reincarnation was BTFO by Irenaeus and others so much that it never recovered. Read him.

Can you point me towards this? Curious to see what he says about this topic

>>605603

Adversus Heresies is freely available on New Advent site.

Reincarnation is talked about here http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103233.htm