@ghost-of-a-duke said(1) If an infant perishes, within the internal logic of Christianity, it enters paradise, correct?
1. As has been argued by philosophers before me, God can not be both omnipotent and perfectly loving. - Take for example an infant dying from a terminal disease. God either can't or won't intervene. If he 'cannot' then He is not omnipotent, and if he 'will not' then He is not perfectly loving. With the existence of such suffering of the innocent, it is impossible for ...[text shortened]... hat the cycle could continue. - Why would an all loving God design and create such a thing?!
3...
How is it not perfectly loving to reward the death of an innocent person with Heaven?
You assume from a materialist perspective that nothing occurs when the infant dies, or something vaguely absurd like prolonged time on earth is preferable to heaven.
(2) This is an interesting concept -- and we do not even have to look to extremes in order to understand this. Indeed, the common belief among Orthodox Christianity is that before the flood man was vegetarian. Our Monks, Nuns, and Bishops still practice a strict form of vegetarianism.
The Bible passages about the lion will lay down with the lamb (found in both the Old & New Testament) reference this idea.
The general belief is that man, in the garden of Eden, was vegetarian, and that the system of the Earth had not yet fallen. It is within the fallen system in which man is now left to his own devices, and in which the totality of existence is also left to its own devices, by which evil very much entered into the world...
What does this mean for parasites and violence between animals, I do not know.
Does the Bible contend that an ant is an ensouled creature that should not be subjected to parasitic infection?
Hardly.
... Is it u nethical that a lion eats a gazelle or a wildebeast? Is it unethical that a whale eats plankton?
I think that is a hard line to peddle.
So why is the line about parasites persuasive?
- Joined
- 06 May 15
- Moves
- 27445
I assume the OP is about disbelief in concepts about the Christian God -- as opposed to The God Itself -- because of the qualifying adjective.
The other day I skimmed through an article that in part discussed differences in approach or emphasis between Eastern (Orthodox) and Western (Roman and Protestant) Christianity, with Eastern being more experiential and Western being more conceptual, and therefore more susceptible to logical analysis and dismantlement. (regrets for any inaccuracy or oversimplification on my part)
For a seeker, I suppose one approach could be to overlook this Terran wrangling over concepts and frameworks and simply and sincerely ask the putative One behind the scenes, "Hello? Is anybody there? Could you help?"
The flip side of disbelief in concepts about God is that we could also drive ourselves or be driven into disbelief of concepts about ourselves (cf. R. D. Laing and some expressions of Buddhism).
I am neither Christian nor a yogi, but I wonder whether among the varieties and treasures of Christian expression we might see something analogous to the eight branches of yoga, i.e., different approaches to the alleged Divine that are suitable and beneficial for different temperaments.
Our Orthodox tradition is famous for never going beyond what can be absolutely declared, yet still upholding the essence of a very conservative, theologically robust Christianity... The perfect example is transubstantiation.
The Latins developed a codified doctrine saying the body & blood of Christ is absolutely in the communion. The Protestants said it was nonsense -- some totally denying it, but saying it is very important symbolically, or coming up with the counter-proposal of "consubtantiation."
... Yet... In Orthodoxy... The debate never occurred because no one was ready to start slitting throats over what specific language & specific thoughts must be employed when we say 'this is my body' / 'this is my blood.'
Here is somethign related that also sums up experientiality in Orthodoxy...
f you cannot find Christ in the beggar at the church door,
you will not find Him in the chalice.
– St. John Chrysostom
... It doesn't deny transubstantiation, or consubstantiation; and in a weird way, it also seems to affirm some concept that maybe Christ isn't even there sometimes... (a potentially dangerous thought) ... yet, He is there when you are the right person who found Christ in the beggar.
Of coruse, we believe that the body & blood of Christ are in the chalice. But still, these terms are undefined, and one of our most important Saints has given us this gem of a quotation which perhaps seems borderline blasphemous to a very legalistically minded Latin.
@dj2becker saidYour disregard for the passages presented to you is noted, as is my error in bothering to engage with you fetchmybecker.
Seek and ye shall find, knock and the door shall be opened. Seek ye first the kingdom of God... Choose ye this day whom ye shall follow. Behold I stand at the door and knock if any man hear my voice and open the door.... Yes God seeks us and gives us all an open invitation. We decide whether to accept or reject the invitation to the great banquet.
@philokalia saidDo you personally believe that a communion wafer turns into the actual body/flesh of Jesus Christ?
Our Orthodox tradition is famous for never going beyond what can be absolutely declared, yet still upholding the essence of a very conservative, theologically robust Christianity... The perfect example is transubstantiation.
The Latins developed a codified doctrine saying the body & blood of Christ is absolutely in the communion. The Protestants said it w ...[text shortened]... gem of a quotation which perhaps seems borderline blasphemous to a very legalistically minded Latin.
@ghost-of-a-duke said3. Listening to Christians try to explain their theology is a pretty big reason-for-disbelief that gets its batteries recharged here week in week out.
1.
2.
3...
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
@divegeester saidYour disregard for the passages I presented is noted as well. The fact that God seeks us is true but that doesn’t mean we don’t have a choice to accept or reject Him. Yes we are chosen by God but does He force Himself on anyone Dive? You seemingly haven’t thought this through yet.
Your disregard for the passages presented to you is noted, as is my error in bothering to engage with you fetchmybecker.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29599
@kellyjay saidNo.
What is the difference? Why would there be a difference between the innocent and anyone else with respect to suffering? You think some deserve to suffer and others don’t?
But as you have already indicated, sometimes suffering can be traced to our free will decisions. For example, If I was suffering from stomach pains as a result of overeating chocolate (yep, it's happened) I could hardly blame God for my suffering. - It is for this reason, in this thread, that I specifically focused on the suffering of an innocent (child) who's suffering could not be linked to the consequences of free will decisions.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29599
@whodey saidNo, I don't. (So no question is begged).
Apparently he thinks that some should die/suffer
So the question begs, using what morality?
I've told you previously not to presume to know what I think.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29599
@philokalia saidSurely 'perfectly' loving, by its very definition, would not 'reward the death of the innocent' but 'PREVENT' the death of an innocent? (And then welcome them into heaven when they die at 108 of natural causes).
How is it not perfectly loving to reward the death of an innocent person with Heaven?
@ghost-of-a-duke saidBut it isn't really death at all.
Surely 'perfectly' loving, by its very definition, would not 'reward the death of the innocent' but 'PREVENT' the death of an innocent? (And then welcome them into heaven when they die at 108 of natural causes).
In early Christianity, the tombstones and epitaphs always referred to it as sleeping because it was integral to the theology to clarify in the beginning that we believe in the eternity of the soul, and that the body itself but sleeps until the final judgment.
Death is not death. Death is conquered.
And we will all face a phsyical death on earth, of course, and that is why it is so easy for us to refer to it as 'death' here in the conventional meaning of it. But death, in the ultimate sense, does not exist. As Fr. Josiah Trenham has said -- death is actually unnatural and has been conquered.
.... Is it better to spend 108 years on earth and then go to paradise, or is it better to spend almost no time on earth, and then go to paradise?
It really depends on someone's perspective, doesn't it? You can argue it either way.
You are arguing it in the way that is opportune to your argument and ignoring the internal logic of Christianity.
@philokalia saidDo you personally believe that a communion wafer turns into the actual body/flesh of Jesus Christ?
But it isn't really death at all.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidDifficult to discuss a root cause of anyone's suffering that is made up. Having had gone through that, and seen much of it around us for a year, I can tell you there are plenty of reasons for some of the innocents to suffer. So you are suggesting you have someone in mind that for no reason are suffering? I have to ask you why do you think suffering means anything good or bad, isn't it just life in your opinion?
No.
But as you have already indicated, sometimes suffering can be traced to our free will decisions. For example, If I was suffering from stomach pains as a result of overeating chocolate (yep, it's happened) I could hardly blame God for my suffering. - It is for this reason, in this thread, that I specifically focused on the suffering of an innocent (child) who's suffering could not be linked to the consequences of free will decisions.