OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 22, 2014, 11:50:52 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: On the Subject of Personhood  (Read 3971 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« on: June 17, 2013, 05:36:25 PM »

Hello everyone in Christ!
My name is Boris, and herewith, I would like to share some of my thoughts on the subject that I find it one of the most important for the Orthodox faith.

On the Subject of Personhood


The human being is determined by the spirit that accesses and prevails in his heart. This spirit becomes a homeland of honor and a heritage of our dignity. It, therefore, because the human soul is inevitably soulful, unique and indestructible reality, both, ontologicaly meaningful and eschatologicaly purposeful in it’s every effort, which simultaneously is in its righteousness and goodness, its opulence and wealth – our Garden of Eden and imperial palace, and in our grief and misery – a harsh desert for us and a dark tomb of our spirit. The same, human soul, by love can become the cherubs chariot of the God’s throne and the solemn bearer of His Holy Spirit.

All of this is happening to us according to a condition of our nature, depending on our humanity and commitment of the soul to a particular spirituality, by devoting of it indestructible and unstoppable life force, from desire and will, to a sense and reason, adopting the ideas and beliefs, knowledge and skills, our souls educates and upbrings to fulfill with the spirit and unite to essence.

Thus, the human being is wonderfully perfect, permanently invariable, unforgettably recognizable, pre-indicatively intended and indeed well determination of our nature that we nominate as personhood.

Because human is a kind of being that is capable of every possible existence, and that, with his consent, his own will, his subjectivity, his personality, gladly, by good deeds, prayers, all his thoughts and feelings, full life, overall inclusive love, remaining essentially beyond all of it, having inherent existence from God in himself, just as God’s presence in all that exists is not becoming any of that, except in a man, His Son and our Savior, Lord Jesus Christ!

Christian personhood is a category of entity that is above the relationship and responsiveness. It’s a love subjectivity and as love itself is unbiased, complete will to God as our Father and towards people, as Christian and brethren born, our person, without abolishment of certain relations and exclusion of itself from others, however, it remains above any sporadic, at the level of perfection of its overall heading, by grace deified, human nature.

By the fullness of love, the Christian personhood precedes and exceeds any particular relationship, being Church-determined in relation to God, supposing Him to all of its distinctive living and, at the same time, divine towards people, respecting them with all of its propriety as oneself.

Therefore, the personhood does not arises from our relations, but actually, it surpasses them with the beauty of an adherent, gathered and adjoined reality of being, suitably represented by it.

Consequently, as a surreal and perfect condition of our nature, only a personhood can contain and express an image and a likeness of God, since it is exactly assimilated and adapted to an improving essence of love, by the perfection that Trinitarian divinity exhibits within each and every person of God as a paragon of each other’s identity and affiliation to their common being, as without any confusion and separation as faith, hope and love are proclaiming each other, so it could be said that personhood is a truly pious humanity and that only in such a (personal) mood and manner, a man is capable of properly offering oneself to God and through a humble wanting and willing of a heart worthily mentioning Him, so that would have been filled with His Holy Spirit and assimilated in same way like bread and wine into an honorable gifts in order to be transformed and converted in His home, His Body and His Holy Orthodox Church, what kind of the gates of hell will never prevail against it.

At the same time, the personhood is a testimony of God and the Church, as a kind of pane through which a clear and healthy mental vision can notice and experience supernaturality of deity. Also, personhood is a cosmological state of all essences and equally inseparable, both from its nature and from its identity. As a matter of fact, the very nature of personhood is exclusively divine and it is causeless to its essence, since they are mutually originated. Aside of essence, the personhood is equally inconceivable and incomprehensible as the impersonal and featureless essence.

Also, personhood is a subjective factor of the unity of all that exists. It can be called and considered a relation in an absolute sense, by the respective inclusion of the entire being. It is an evenness of your uniqueness with all of the existence. It is a natural way of existence and an in tune living by perfect being of own nature in unconditional mutuality of individuals.

A nature is manifested as subjectivity through personhood, by producing a kind of relations as facts of its being. The way that one numerical unit contains each one and all of the numbering system, by a personhood, each and every person represents not only the essence, but also the identity of all the other congenial persons.

That is to say, a personhood is an etalon of beauty for all kinds of being. It does not abolish relationships but there is over and above them in its own nature. Persons establish and found their own relations, and it is not the same case vice versa, insofar as God is concerned.

Personal relationships are possible only within the same nature, ie, it is impossible to add, subtract, multiply, divide, merge or separate heterogeneous values in order to produce a personal subjectivity of any of them, or even less, of some quite new composite substances. That is why God has put on a man, that we might be draped in His divinity.

All of us, that much we are beings, as much we are human. As long as we do not become of people, ie, as long as any of us does not become a wholly human being, of such one, in no way can be said that he is a person. Until we adopt in ourself the whole humanness, as long as our individual will does not being healed and becomes completely of humankind, to the point, we will remain only individual human creatures, ie, decomposing and deconstructed nature deprived of the fullness of their natural qualities. And that, of course, can not happen devoid and in lack of the grace, without receiving the redemption and salvation of Christ’s sacrifice.

So, all rational creatures are spiritual beings, and of spiritual indivisible nature that as personalities possess integrally without confusion. A true relationship is a consequence of the personhood of spiritual essence. What is an impersonal, can not actively participate in any form of relationship. A Personhood contains the entire identity of existence. In the partial relations, personality turns in to a dead identity and becomes an individual, that is, when we participate in something partially or with any kind of restraint, ie, not with a whole heart and of the passionless love, but for the sake of a sinful and selfish interests, then we put on a mask of false identity, ceasing to be human at all.

Thus, a personhood is the possession of being or an aesthetics of essence and as such, only to incomprehensible Godhead is immanent naturally. It is different than other persons not by distinguishing of will, knowledge, skill, kindness, wisdom and other virtues that completely possess by its natural dignity, but, the way it identifies the existing in itself, ie, by the identification of their being, or rather, by remarkable worship share and praising the wealth of their indivisible being that mutually in a wholeness possess.

As follows, a reasonable being is always someone, like each human voice that is unrepeatable and everyone’s sensibility is emphatically indescribable, though, all that identity belongs to the same essence of certain species and to a common being that exclusively refers to the entities of personhood.

A person is being born and stems out of the personhood, gaining a fullness of the very same being that differently exists in a mutual love. Wealth of the Godhead is actually a riches of love or inexhaustible treasures of being with an overall beauty of existance, an abundance of personality and identity of the living.

Thus, the identity of a person does not originate from the relationship, but the beauty of being that is unique to each person, because, on the other hand, our personal relationships are based on respect of kinship and mutual peculiarity of a single being.

Therefore, the relationship is without any ontological content of itself, and the communities, when constituted simply by the acts of interrelations, such are of a political nature, but, if there is also a presence of a moral ideal, such are personal, ie, of a spiritual nature.

The concept of personhood based on the otherness is completely meaningless. It attempts to establish an ontology on a certain phenomenology of otherness, ie, personality. That kind of person is an unsustainable and indeterminable entity of a conditional personality with а random distinctiveness of а modern and imaginary individual.

Ontological primacy of distinguishing personality tailored to the individual, partial and ineffective entities of communal eminence, that, through the republican model of social relevance, as a kind of political commonwealth, consensually establishes its essentiality of a spurious divinity, is nothing more than an act of a rebellion insurgency and a separation from original nature, only because of a mindless pride.

And when it comes to God as a supreme being of ultimate integrity, there is no other appropriate way of His existence besides that of the Holy Trinity. His hyper-essential will which is love, can not be brought to a more resembling mode of existence, rather than subjectivity of the Father, neither more suitable disclosed to existing, than by subjectivity of the Son, nor explain His divinity in more vivid notions and more intimate sentiments, but within the Holy Spirit. Expression of Godhead will is taking place with an active simultaneous participation of all its divine personalities, through one of them, according to a conforming specificity of each.

Thus, the deeds of God are always being conducted and performed by an active involvement and engagement of all hypostases, either from, through, or within one of them, likewise their personal relationships are established out of the same transcendent content, without any kind of ontological dividing or differentiation. To one another, they are entirely inherent denominators and numerators of the same indivisible treasures they hold. Their monarchy expresses an autocratic, self-consistent and sublimely dignified nobility of the being that naturally belongs to the Son, and also, as a spiritual reality, never the less to the Holy Spirit, since both of them are equally honorable participants that have never lagged behind after the Father’s principle of The Holy Trinity, The Consubstantial and The Indivisible, Which is to save us.

Possession of personality is in fact owning of а love identity with which we acquire grace, ie, a divine gift of participation in the deed of love, which is nothing other than shedding of blood for the acquisition of spirit and laying of the soul, her temporary wear and loss, just for а permanent preservation and glorification, and even the use of the body (along with the physical wisdom) as the candle and a raising food seeds of а new life, The Word of God, the one and only true treasure that actually exists and can be continuously gained in itself and by which can be bought whole the Kingdom of Heaven, which is the unanimity in God.

The problem of understanding the personhood arises from improper comprehension of freedom, ie, its identification with looseness, licentiousness and other forms of casual and irresponsible behavior, which causes many misunderstandings, confusions, controversies and disputes nowadays of a human salvation.To such, so much erroneous concept of freedom comes because of the self-justification of such an improper conduct, which, as a paralyzing poison dulls the sense of human freedom as a soul’s noblest capability of receiving, preserving and tradition of love pledged in our origin, ie, in our very nature that as an icon of God, a measure and an artfulness of divinity, can be actuated towards its archetype (the divine being) only by the personality of The Holy Trinity, operational of the Father, through the Son, within the Holy Spirit.

Consequently, freedom is the the most comprehensive capability of existence and the possibility of being as a gift of love, through and whitin the love itself as an ultimate gift, the purpose of all the inspiration and the aim of all the charisma. Therefor, the being could not anyhow be intrusive for the real freedom, and anyway, it can not presents any kind of burden or onus, since the freedom has been given to us because of the nature of our being primarily.

Proper apprehension of freedom inherent to every conscious being is very helpful in understanding the phenomenon of our personality, wich by freedom, ie, by spiritual sensitivity towards being, can be consensually gained within oneself and willingly shown to everyone, while as an order, it may also be instructed and commanded to all that exists.

Freedom is the power of repentance and capability of obedience to God, but personhood – it’s the very act and honor (taking an active part) of deification. Human personhood (much less the divine) is not just a “way of being” of some sort of essence, but exclusively an Orthodox Christianity of man (thanks and praise God). It is not some imagination through or a mere imitation, but, a total commitment and belonging of а man to God and an immediate symbolic linking of oneself being and destiny to the hyper-essential will of His, delivered to us without any residue, through the Holy Gospel of the Son of God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Checking the claims about freedom to its etymological grounds confirms the meaning of my sense of freedom, that it is, above all, a love gift of divinity in the possibility for achievement the perfection of human nature through the mysterious life of the Body of Christ and for acquiring the divinity through an evangelical living of such a regenerated, healed and iconized human nature by the divine personality of the Son of God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Simplified, freedom is the economy of salvation of human nature as a constitutional order of its decency dedicated to be offered for a transfiguration and a new living of an infinite life of Godhead.

To be continued...
Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #1 on: June 18, 2013, 12:05:26 AM »

I've just been working on similar topics on my own blog. These are just two posts:

http://romanianorthodoxyinenglish.blogspot.ro/2013/06/god-is-pure-subjectivity-and.html
http://romanianorthodoxyinenglish.blogspot.ro/2013/06/the-person-is-ultimate-dimension-father.html

« Last Edit: June 18, 2013, 12:06:17 AM by IoanC » Logged

krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 18, 2013, 05:03:10 AM »

Dear Ioan,

Your work is on the oposite position of the same subject We are both concern with.
Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #3 on: June 18, 2013, 05:21:55 AM »

Dear Ioan,

Your work is on the oposite position of the same subject We are both concern with.

I don't understand, since I was not exactly taking a position, just referring to the personal dimension of life.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2013, 05:22:53 AM by IoanC » Logged

krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 18, 2013, 10:11:03 AM »

You say:
Quote
What is substantial in the one who lives? It's exactly the person; the person lives.

I'm sorry, but, that's not true. That's an error.
A Person is an entity completely different than substance or essence.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,173


theologian by day, bard by night


« Reply #5 on: June 18, 2013, 10:16:06 AM »

Quote
Ontological primacy of distinguishing personality tailored to the individual, partial and ineffective entities of communal eminence, that, through the republican model of social relevance, as a kind of political commonwealth, consensually establishes its essentiality of a spurious divinity, is nothing more than an act of a rebellion insurgency and a separation from original nature, only because of a mindless pride.

I can't believe this didn't occur to me before...
Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 18, 2013, 10:32:01 AM »

Sorry to hear that. It was so obvious. Smiley
Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #7 on: June 18, 2013, 10:58:03 AM »

krotok, your initial post inspired me to write this: http://romanianorthodoxyinenglish.blogspot.ro/2013/06/giving-is-receiving.html

Maybe you'll like it.
Logged

primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,582


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 18, 2013, 12:47:49 PM »

Quote
Ontological primacy of distinguishing personality tailored to the individual, partial and ineffective entities of communal eminence, that, through the republican model of social relevance, as a kind of political commonwealth, consensually establishes its essentiality of a spurious divinity, is nothing more than an act of a rebellion insurgency and a separation from original nature, only because of a mindless pride.

I can't believe this didn't occur to me before...
Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Gamliel
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 2,287



« Reply #9 on: June 18, 2013, 12:59:44 PM »

Is "person" the same as "individual"?
Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #10 on: June 18, 2013, 01:06:36 PM »

Is "person" the same as "individual"?

Not in the context that I've used it and in the way I understand it. Person hood relates to who you are not what you are. You are an individual in society, but that's not your identity, your image from God. Part of the struggle of evil is to give up the aspect of the person in favor of the object, to turn the person into an object; yet while this is practicable, it is unattainable. You cannot cease to be who you are, but only fight against yourself endlessly.
Logged

orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #11 on: June 18, 2013, 03:15:46 PM »

Hello everyone in Christ!
My name is Boris, and herewith, I would like to share some of my thoughts on the subject that I find it one of the most important for the Orthodox faith.

On the Subject of Personhood


The human being is determined by the spirit that accesses and prevails in his heart. This spirit becomes a homeland of honor and a heritage of our dignity. It, therefore, because the human soul is inevitably soulful, unique and indestructible reality, both, ontologicaly meaningful and eschatologicaly purposeful in it’s every effort, which simultaneously is in its righteousness and goodness, its opulence and wealth – our Garden of Eden and imperial palace, and in our grief and misery – a harsh desert for us and a dark tomb of our spirit. The same, human soul, by love can become the cherubs chariot of the God’s throne and the solemn bearer of His Holy Spirit.

All of this is happening to us according to a condition of our nature, depending on our humanity and commitment of the soul to a particular spirituality, by devoting of it indestructible and unstoppable life force, from desire and will, to a sense and reason, adopting the ideas and beliefs, knowledge and skills, our souls educates and upbrings to fulfill with the spirit and unite to essence.

Thus, the human being is wonderfully perfect, permanently invariable, unforgettably recognizable, pre-indicatively intended and indeed well determination of our nature that we nominate as personhood.

Because human is a kind of being that is capable of every possible existence, and that, with his consent, his own will, his subjectivity, his personality, gladly, by good deeds, prayers, all his thoughts and feelings, full life, overall inclusive love, remaining essentially beyond all of it, having inherent existence from God in himself, just as God’s presence in all that exists is not becoming any of that, except in a man, His Son and our Savior, Lord Jesus Christ!

Christian personhood is a category of entity that is above the relationship and responsiveness. It’s a love subjectivity and as love itself is unbiased, complete will to God as our Father and towards people, as Christian and brethren born, our person, without abolishment of certain relations and exclusion of itself from others, however, it remains above any sporadic, at the level of perfection of its overall heading, by grace deified, human nature.

By the fullness of love, the Christian personhood precedes and exceeds any particular relationship, being Church-determined in relation to God, supposing Him to all of its distinctive living and, at the same time, divine towards people, respecting them with all of its propriety as oneself.

Therefore, the personhood does not arises from our relations, but actually, it surpasses them with the beauty of an adherent, gathered and adjoined reality of being, suitably represented by it.

Consequently, as a surreal and perfect condition of our nature, only a personhood can contain and express an image and a likeness of God, since it is exactly assimilated and adapted to an improving essence of love, by the perfection that Trinitarian divinity exhibits within each and every person of God as a paragon of each other’s identity and affiliation to their common being, as without any confusion and separation as faith, hope and love are proclaiming each other, so it could be said that personhood is a truly pious humanity and that only in such a (personal) mood and manner, a man is capable of properly offering oneself to God and through a humble wanting and willing of a heart worthily mentioning Him, so that would have been filled with His Holy Spirit and assimilated in same way like bread and wine into an honorable gifts in order to be transformed and converted in His home, His Body and His Holy Orthodox Church, what kind of the gates of hell will never prevail against it.

At the same time, the personhood is a testimony of God and the Church, as a kind of pane through which a clear and healthy mental vision can notice and experience supernaturality of deity. Also, personhood is a cosmological state of all essences and equally inseparable, both from its nature and from its identity. As a matter of fact, the very nature of personhood is exclusively divine and it is causeless to its essence, since they are mutually originated. Aside of essence, the personhood is equally inconceivable and incomprehensible as the impersonal and featureless essence.

Also, personhood is a subjective factor of the unity of all that exists. It can be called and considered a relation in an absolute sense, by the respective inclusion of the entire being. It is an evenness of your uniqueness with all of the existence. It is a natural way of existence and an in tune living by perfect being of own nature in unconditional mutuality of individuals.

A nature is manifested as subjectivity through personhood, by producing a kind of relations as facts of its being. The way that one numerical unit contains each one and all of the numbering system, by a personhood, each and every person represents not only the essence, but also the identity of all the other congenial persons.

That is to say, a personhood is an etalon of beauty for all kinds of being. It does not abolish relationships but there is over and above them in its own nature. Persons establish and found their own relations, and it is not the same case vice versa, insofar as God is concerned.

Personal relationships are possible only within the same nature, ie, it is impossible to add, subtract, multiply, divide, merge or separate heterogeneous values in order to produce a personal subjectivity of any of them, or even less, of some quite new composite substances. That is why God has put on a man, that we might be draped in His divinity.

All of us, that much we are beings, as much we are human. As long as we do not become of people, ie, as long as any of us does not become a wholly human being, of such one, in no way can be said that he is a person. Until we adopt in ourself the whole humanness, as long as our individual will does not being healed and becomes completely of humankind, to the point, we will remain only individual human creatures, ie, decomposing and deconstructed nature deprived of the fullness of their natural qualities. And that, of course, can not happen devoid and in lack of the grace, without receiving the redemption and salvation of Christ’s sacrifice.

So, all rational creatures are spiritual beings, and of spiritual indivisible nature that as personalities possess integrally without confusion. A true relationship is a consequence of the personhood of spiritual essence. What is an impersonal, can not actively participate in any form of relationship. A Personhood contains the entire identity of existence. In the partial relations, personality turns in to a dead identity and becomes an individual, that is, when we participate in something partially or with any kind of restraint, ie, not with a whole heart and of the passionless love, but for the sake of a sinful and selfish interests, then we put on a mask of false identity, ceasing to be human at all.

Thus, a personhood is the possession of being or an aesthetics of essence and as such, only to incomprehensible Godhead is immanent naturally. It is different than other persons not by distinguishing of will, knowledge, skill, kindness, wisdom and other virtues that completely possess by its natural dignity, but, the way it identifies the existing in itself, ie, by the identification of their being, or rather, by remarkable worship share and praising the wealth of their indivisible being that mutually in a wholeness possess.

As follows, a reasonable being is always someone, like each human voice that is unrepeatable and everyone’s sensibility is emphatically indescribable, though, all that identity belongs to the same essence of certain species and to a common being that exclusively refers to the entities of personhood.

A person is being born and stems out of the personhood, gaining a fullness of the very same being that differently exists in a mutual love. Wealth of the Godhead is actually a riches of love or inexhaustible treasures of being with an overall beauty of existance, an abundance of personality and identity of the living.

Thus, the identity of a person does not originate from the relationship, but the beauty of being that is unique to each person, because, on the other hand, our personal relationships are based on respect of kinship and mutual peculiarity of a single being.

Therefore, the relationship is without any ontological content of itself, and the communities, when constituted simply by the acts of interrelations, such are of a political nature, but, if there is also a presence of a moral ideal, such are personal, ie, of a spiritual nature.

The concept of personhood based on the otherness is completely meaningless. It attempts to establish an ontology on a certain phenomenology of otherness, ie, personality. That kind of person is an unsustainable and indeterminable entity of a conditional personality with а random distinctiveness of а modern and imaginary individual.

Ontological primacy of distinguishing personality tailored to the individual, partial and ineffective entities of communal eminence, that, through the republican model of social relevance, as a kind of political commonwealth, consensually establishes its essentiality of a spurious divinity, is nothing more than an act of a rebellion insurgency and a separation from original nature, only because of a mindless pride.

And when it comes to God as a supreme being of ultimate integrity, there is no other appropriate way of His existence besides that of the Holy Trinity. His hyper-essential will which is love, can not be brought to a more resembling mode of existence, rather than subjectivity of the Father, neither more suitable disclosed to existing, than by subjectivity of the Son, nor explain His divinity in more vivid notions and more intimate sentiments, but within the Holy Spirit. Expression of Godhead will is taking place with an active simultaneous participation of all its divine personalities, through one of them, according to a conforming specificity of each.

Thus, the deeds of God are always being conducted and performed by an active involvement and engagement of all hypostases, either from, through, or within one of them, likewise their personal relationships are established out of the same transcendent content, without any kind of ontological dividing or differentiation. To one another, they are entirely inherent denominators and numerators of the same indivisible treasures they hold. Their monarchy expresses an autocratic, self-consistent and sublimely dignified nobility of the being that naturally belongs to the Son, and also, as a spiritual reality, never the less to the Holy Spirit, since both of them are equally honorable participants that have never lagged behind after the Father’s principle of The Holy Trinity, The Consubstantial and The Indivisible, Which is to save us.

Possession of personality is in fact owning of а love identity with which we acquire grace, ie, a divine gift of participation in the deed of love, which is nothing other than shedding of blood for the acquisition of spirit and laying of the soul, her temporary wear and loss, just for а permanent preservation and glorification, and even the use of the body (along with the physical wisdom) as the candle and a raising food seeds of а new life, The Word of God, the one and only true treasure that actually exists and can be continuously gained in itself and by which can be bought whole the Kingdom of Heaven, which is the unanimity in God.

The problem of understanding the personhood arises from improper comprehension of freedom, ie, its identification with looseness, licentiousness and other forms of casual and irresponsible behavior, which causes many misunderstandings, confusions, controversies and disputes nowadays of a human salvation.To such, so much erroneous concept of freedom comes because of the self-justification of such an improper conduct, which, as a paralyzing poison dulls the sense of human freedom as a soul’s noblest capability of receiving, preserving and tradition of love pledged in our origin, ie, in our very nature that as an icon of God, a measure and an artfulness of divinity, can be actuated towards its archetype (the divine being) only by the personality of The Holy Trinity, operational of the Father, through the Son, within the Holy Spirit.

Consequently, freedom is the the most comprehensive capability of existence and the possibility of being as a gift of love, through and whitin the love itself as an ultimate gift, the purpose of all the inspiration and the aim of all the charisma. Therefor, the being could not anyhow be intrusive for the real freedom, and anyway, it can not presents any kind of burden or onus, since the freedom has been given to us because of the nature of our being primarily.

Proper apprehension of freedom inherent to every conscious being is very helpful in understanding the phenomenon of our personality, wich by freedom, ie, by spiritual sensitivity towards being, can be consensually gained within oneself and willingly shown to everyone, while as an order, it may also be instructed and commanded to all that exists.

Freedom is the power of repentance and capability of obedience to God, but personhood – it’s the very act and honor (taking an active part) of deification. Human personhood (much less the divine) is not just a “way of being” of some sort of essence, but exclusively an Orthodox Christianity of man (thanks and praise God). It is not some imagination through or a mere imitation, but, a total commitment and belonging of а man to God and an immediate symbolic linking of oneself being and destiny to the hyper-essential will of His, delivered to us without any residue, through the Holy Gospel of the Son of God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Checking the claims about freedom to its etymological grounds confirms the meaning of my sense of freedom, that it is, above all, a love gift of divinity in the possibility for achievement the perfection of human nature through the mysterious life of the Body of Christ and for acquiring the divinity through an evangelical living of such a regenerated, healed and iconized human nature by the divine personality of the Son of God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Simplified, freedom is the economy of salvation of human nature as a constitutional order of its decency dedicated to be offered for a transfiguration and a new living of an infinite life of Godhead.

To be continued...

Epic.

I look forward to your further ruminations.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 18, 2013, 04:05:59 PM »

orthonorm said:

Quote
Epic.
I look forward to your further ruminations.

Very reflective observation. You must be so worried. I feel sorry for you.
Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #13 on: June 18, 2013, 04:14:38 PM »

Is "person" the same as "individual"?

Not at all. A person is the subject of a whole indivisible divine being.
Nothing less than that.
Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #14 on: June 18, 2013, 04:21:51 PM »

krotok, your initial post inspired me to write this: http://romanianorthodoxyinenglish.blogspot.ro/2013/06/giving-is-receiving.html

Maybe you'll like it.

Although I am flattered I've inspired you, I have to point out that I disagree with what you wrote and I think that your opinion is very infected by theological personalism.
Thanks anyway
Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #15 on: June 18, 2013, 04:45:36 PM »

Gaining of personality is unattainable to a man by own forces and way of being, because our natural place is besides God, in the midst of His divine nature, shining with brilliance and beauty of His personality, our nature gets celebrated with personality, as a reflection and glint of divinity.
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,352


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #16 on: June 18, 2013, 04:50:49 PM »

Gaining of personality is unattainable to a man by own forces and way of being, because our natural place is besides God, in the midst of His divine nature, shining with brilliance and beauty of His personality, our nature gets celebrated with personality, as a reflection and glint of divinity.

Our personhood is a gift from God at our conception.
Our personality is a product of environmental, cultural, and familial complex interactions.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #17 on: June 18, 2013, 05:09:04 PM »

On the other hand, God is perfect and His personality is quite natural (consubstantial) to Himself. A divine person does not produces its essence out from the way of existence, ie, identity, either in or outside itself (so to speak, ecstatically), but of oneself, by oneself and whitin oneself, He totally inherently contains, expresses and manifests it to an existence.
Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #18 on: June 18, 2013, 05:11:31 PM »

Gaining of personality is unattainable to a man by own forces and way of being, because our natural place is besides God, in the midst of His divine nature, shining with brilliance and beauty of His personality, our nature gets celebrated with personality, as a reflection and glint of divinity.

Our personhood is a gift from God at our conception.
Our personality is a product of environmental, cultural, and familial complex interactions.

That concept completely frees us from liability, and makes us only individuals.
Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #19 on: June 18, 2013, 05:30:31 PM »

krotok, your initial post inspired me to write this: http://romanianorthodoxyinenglish.blogspot.ro/2013/06/giving-is-receiving.html

Maybe you'll like it.

Although I am flattered I've inspired you, I have to point out that I disagree with what you wrote and I think that your opinion is very infected by theological personalism.
Thanks anyway

It's your choice to see it that way. Thing is you'd have to offer a rationality for why it is wrong, or else it means that you are unwrapped in your own personality. I am not hoping to discuss about it, actually, but to point out that this where communion between people drops, of course -- not permanently, because they cannot see beyond their personal preferences, presenting them as actual arguments.
Logged

krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #20 on: June 19, 2013, 07:05:07 AM »

The self-proclaimed theology of divine personality, according to a human weakness and a need for freedom from liability, considers the personhood of God by imagining it separated from His hyper-essential nature and presupposing it as her cause and aim.
Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #21 on: June 19, 2013, 09:00:07 AM »

The self-proclaimed theology of divine personality, according to a human weakness and a need for freedom from liability, considers the personhood of God by imagining it separated from His hyper-essential nature and presupposing it as her cause and aim.

I don't think we are talking about the same thing. God's person-hood is precisely not a consequence of His essence, but a consequence of the absolute virtue that He practices (or is, God is pure virtue) for all eternity. Man is free from (legal) liability because love can only be freely chosen; in other words only practiced as virtue (not as a result of a coercive law). Man is not free from causality, however. He cannot not practice virtue without negative consequences. My claim about freedom was not that it is an aim, but only possible when man loves.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2013, 09:04:06 AM by IoanC » Logged

krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #22 on: June 19, 2013, 03:46:09 PM »

The self-proclaimed theology of divine personality, according to a human weakness and a need for freedom from liability, considers the personhood of God by imagining it separated from His hyper-essential nature and presupposing it as her cause and aim.

This paradoxical statement is the negation of the very notion of personhood and it introduces an ontological absurd of immoral existance as an absolut kind of being, that is to say, God is not good by nature and nothing well is naturally characteristic of Him, but, He becomes such by the measure of his fatherhood, sonship or spirituality, i.e., that He may wants to, and in accordance with such foolishness, become bed and evil! Otherwise, these "scholars" can not accept Him as an almighty God (worthy of them), attributing Him their own inability to let Himself free of own being, exactly as they let themselves do even to Him.
Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #23 on: June 20, 2013, 07:30:31 AM »

The self-proclaimed theology of divine personality, according to a human weakness and a need for freedom from liability, considers the personhood of God by imagining it separated from His hyper-essential nature and presupposing it as her cause and aim.

This paradoxical statement is the negation of the very notion of personhood and it introduces an ontological absurd of immoral existance as an absolut kind of being, that is to say, God is not good by nature and nothing well is naturally characteristic of Him, but, He becomes such by the measure of his fatherhood, sonship or spirituality, i.e., that He may wants to, and in accordance with such foolishness, become bed and evil! Otherwise, these "scholars" can not accept Him as an almighty God (worthy of them), attributing Him their own inability to let Himself free of own being, exactly as they let themselves do even to Him.

God is not good because of His nature but because He IS good. This is a personal characteristic. If it was as easy as having a nature to be good, then there would be no virtue. If you are saying that His nature is good, then what effort does He actually make? His nature can only be good, only if He chooses to use it for good. And God being infinite, He has to do it in an infinite way. And, if He does it in an infinite way, His nature becomes infinitely meaningless because He has become goodness itself. For the sake of theoretical thinking, yes, His nature is good, but what good is that if it doesn't cease to be an object and is converted into goodness.
Logged

krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #24 on: June 20, 2013, 08:00:35 AM »

The self-proclaimed theology of divine personality, according to a human weakness and a need for freedom from liability, considers the personhood of God by imagining it separated from His hyper-essential nature and presupposing it as her cause and aim.

This paradoxical statement is the negation of the very notion of personhood and it introduces an ontological absurd of immoral existance as an absolut kind of being, that is to say, God is not good by nature and nothing well is naturally characteristic of Him, but, He becomes such by the measure of his fatherhood, sonship or spirituality, i.e., that He may wants to, and in accordance with such foolishness, become bed and evil! Otherwise, these "scholars" can not accept Him as an almighty God (worthy of them), attributing Him their own inability to let Himself free of own being, exactly as they let themselves do even to Him.

God is not good because of His nature but because He IS good. This is a personal characteristic. If it was as easy as having a nature to be good, then there would be no virtue. If you are saying that His nature is good, then what effort does He actually make? His nature can only be good, only if He chooses to use it for good. And God being infinite, He has to do it in an infinite way. And, if He does it in an infinite way, His nature becomes infinitely meaningless because He has become goodness itself. For the sake of theoretical thinking, yes, His nature is good, but what good is that if it doesn't cease to be an object and is converted into goodness.

I'm really sorry to say, but, what You said here is completely untrue. It's obvious that You are influenced by the personalism in a modern theology.
Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #25 on: June 20, 2013, 08:10:32 AM »

The self-proclaimed theology of divine personality, according to a human weakness and a need for freedom from liability, considers the personhood of God by imagining it separated from His hyper-essential nature and presupposing it as her cause and aim.

This paradoxical statement is the negation of the very notion of personhood and it introduces an ontological absurd of immoral existance as an absolut kind of being, that is to say, God is not good by nature and nothing well is naturally characteristic of Him, but, He becomes such by the measure of his fatherhood, sonship or spirituality, i.e., that He may wants to, and in accordance with such foolishness, become bed and evil! Otherwise, these "scholars" can not accept Him as an almighty God (worthy of them), attributing Him their own inability to let Himself free of own being, exactly as they let themselves do even to Him.

God is not good because of His nature but because He IS good. This is a personal characteristic. If it was as easy as having a nature to be good, then there would be no virtue. If you are saying that His nature is good, then what effort does He actually make? His nature can only be good, only if He chooses to use it for good. And God being infinite, He has to do it in an infinite way. And, if He does it in an infinite way, His nature becomes infinitely meaningless because He has become goodness itself. For the sake of theoretical thinking, yes, His nature is good, but what good is that if it doesn't cease to be an object and is converted into goodness.

I'm really sorry to say, but, what You said here is completely untrue. It's obvious that You are influenced by the personalism in a modern theology.

Well, you are only expressing your dislike for modern theology from what I gather. Without arguments we are forever lost in our preferences, though. I don't believe what I say is "completely untrue". I would be careful in using such absolute language (without even the slightest argument in regards to anything I actually said). Would it be fair for me to say that your initial post is pure mysticism? Smiley Anyway, let us not argue anymore. It seems guaranteed we are getting nowhere. Smiley
Logged

krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #26 on: June 20, 2013, 09:05:42 AM »

Thinking that God could be bothered by His own nature and that He exists regardless and irrespectively of it, then, that all of His natural characteristic are the consequences of his personal qualities, is in fact, the the greatest possible insult that can be applied to God, that by nature He is not sufficiently powerful and good, i.e. that by nature is unworthy of His own distinctiveness, or otherwise, that by personality He is insufficiently capable to deal with own nature as such.
Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #27 on: June 20, 2013, 09:25:07 AM »

Thinking that God could be bothered by His own nature and that He exists regardless and irrespectively of it, then, that all of His natural characteristic are the consequences of his personal qualities, is in fact, the the greatest possible insult that can be applied to God, that by nature He is not sufficiently powerful and good, i.e. that by nature is unworthy of His own distinctiveness, or otherwise, that by personality He is insufficiently capable to deal with own nature as such.

Actually, if you believe that your nature is enough to be worthy of anything, you are selfish. You don't owe anything to anybody and everybody owes everything to you because of your "special" nature (which is an idol). In fact, one of the distinctions of God is that He is all-immaterial. Can you explain how God can be immaterial? In fact, I will say that the only way God can be immaterial is because He wants to be (out of His infinite virtue). Otherwise, you claim that He has some materiality that sustains His immateriality, but it's only His person-hood that could possibly keep Him immaterial. In other words, God is someone who practices the ultimate and infinite denial of self that causes Him to literally become nothing to Himself and everything to everybody else.
Logged

krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #28 on: June 20, 2013, 04:29:50 PM »

The very idea that one can realize and express the being of God and form a single ontological doctrine of God is the greatest possible delusion to human mind. Without exception, all the holy fathers agree that God’s being is absolutely inaccessible and unknowable, and that knowledge of God is possible only through the grace-filled energies that by The Holy Trinity are always hypostatically available to us, of the Father, through the Son, within the Holy Spirit. Therefore, since the being of God is above all comprehension, confirmation and denial, there can be no question of divine ontology as the gnostic system, and least of all, with its center in intelligible and richly definable notion of personhood.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,173


theologian by day, bard by night


« Reply #29 on: June 21, 2013, 03:02:46 AM »

Well, you tried posting this blog entry at the e-café and didn't get far, and now you've had a similar result here at oc.net. I see you are a member at monachos.net, but apparently haven't posted it yet... perhaps 3rd time is a charm?
« Last Edit: June 21, 2013, 03:03:11 AM by Asteriktos » Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #30 on: June 21, 2013, 03:03:09 AM »

The very idea that one can realize and express the being of God and form a single ontological doctrine of God is the greatest possible delusion to human mind. Without exception, all the holy fathers agree that God’s being is absolutely inaccessible and unknowable, and that knowledge of God is possible only through the grace-filled energies that by The Holy Trinity are always hypostatically available to us, of the Father, through the Son, within the Holy Spirit. Therefore, since the being of God is above all comprehension, confirmation and denial, there can be no question of divine ontology as the gnostic system, and least of all, with its center in intelligible and richly definable notion of personhood.

God does not have a being, He is not a being. This puts in Him in the same category as creatures. The Fathers don't say that God's nature is inaccessible, but that it is unknowable. Inaccessible and unknowable are not the same thing in this context.

Inaccessible means that God cannot reveal Himself completely, that theosis is not possible for man, but God can only deify man up to a point and not infinitely. However, unknowable means that God Himself is not His essence, He chooses to not be in terms of an essence. This doesn't mean that He doesn't know what an essence could be, but that He chooses not to be one. He chooses to be immaterial.

Immateriality is impossible if you remain something. To call yourself immaterial you have to give up everything that could possible make you material, even things unknown to man. So, immateriality cannot be caused by an essence, unless that essence is nothingness itself (which makes no sense and would mean that God is nothing).

Logged

krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #31 on: June 21, 2013, 05:27:47 AM »

Well, you tried posting this blog entry at the e-café and didn't get far, and now you've had a similar result here at oc.net. I see you are a member at monachos.net, but apparently haven't posted it yet... perhaps 3rd time is a charm?

Congratulations.
You should seriously consider аpplying for a job at the intelligence.
Anyway, I intend to post my writing everywhere else on the net.
Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #32 on: June 21, 2013, 05:33:14 AM »

Well, you tried posting this blog entry at the e-café and didn't get far, and now you've had a similar result here at oc.net. I see you are a member at monachos.net, but apparently haven't posted it yet... perhaps 3rd time is a charm?

Congratulations.
You should seriously consider аpplying for a job at the intelligence.
Anyway, I intend to post my writing everywhere else on the net.

Post it, but if you don't care if people actually understand it and agree with it, why else would you do it?
Logged

Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #33 on: June 21, 2013, 05:35:26 AM »

ROFL  Cheesy
Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #34 on: June 21, 2013, 12:34:16 PM »

Scholastic epistemology and its latest product - a modern deconstructionist theology based on the occult concept of personality as the subject of initiation of the divine reality, claiming that the Father, by His personal existence and drawing up of other hypostases, according to his will and at His discretion establishes the essence of divinity is an obvious attempt to present a hyper-essential nature of divinity as a personal quality and status of Father’s hypostasis, for an evidence of the ontological primacy of personality.
Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #35 on: June 21, 2013, 12:37:27 PM »

Scholastic epistemology and its latest product - a modern deconstructionist theology based on the occult concept of personality as the subject of initiation of the divine reality, claiming that the Father, by His personal existence and drawing up of other hypostases, according to his will and at His discretion establishes the essence of divinity is an obvious attempt to present a hyper-essential nature of divinity as a personal quality and status of Father’s hypostasis, for an evidence of the ontological primacy of personality.

I respect your right to say whatever you want, but let us be clear and for the sake of excising my own right to speak, I do not support anything you claim above (that's your own interpretation of what I said).
Logged

IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #36 on: June 21, 2013, 12:39:57 PM »

An here is an "official" response: http://romanianorthodoxyinenglish.blogspot.ro/2013/06/a-response-to-criticism-regarding-gods.html
Logged

Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #37 on: June 21, 2013, 12:53:31 PM »

Scholastic epistemology and its latest product - a modern deconstructionist theology based on the occult concept of personality as the subject of initiation of the divine reality, claiming that the Father, by His personal existence and drawing up of other hypostases, according to his will and at His discretion establishes the essence of divinity is an obvious attempt to present a hyper-essential nature of divinity as a personal quality and status of Father’s hypostasis, for an evidence of the ontological primacy of personality.

Is this about the Bishop Hierotheos Vlachos vs. Bishop John Zizioulas debate?
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,317



« Reply #38 on: June 21, 2013, 01:12:51 PM »

In reflecting upon your words, I quote a modern sage.

Quote
Beer is good, God is great and people are crazy.

That is all.  Continue.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #39 on: June 22, 2013, 03:16:22 AM »

Scholastic epistemology and its latest product - a modern deconstructionist theology based on the occult concept of personality as the subject of initiation of the divine reality, claiming that the Father, by His personal existence and drawing up of other hypostases, according to his will and at His discretion establishes the essence of divinity is an obvious attempt to present a hyper-essential nature of divinity as a personal quality and status of Father’s hypostasis, for an evidence of the ontological primacy of personality.

Is this about the Bishop Hierotheos Vlachos vs. Bishop John Zizioulas debate?

Actually, it's about the theology of Metropolitan John Zizioulas
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #40 on: June 22, 2013, 03:20:41 AM »

Scholastic epistemology and its latest product - a modern deconstructionist theology based on the occult concept of personality as the subject of initiation of the divine reality, claiming that the Father, by His personal existence and drawing up of other hypostases, according to his will and at His discretion establishes the essence of divinity is an obvious attempt to present a hyper-essential nature of divinity as a personal quality and status of Father’s hypostasis, for an evidence of the ontological primacy of personality.

Is this about the Bishop Hierotheos Vlachos vs. Bishop John Zizioulas debate?

Actually, it's about the theology of Metropolitan John Zizioulas

Actually, it's about an odd reading of the writings of Metropolitan John of Pergamon.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2013, 03:20:53 AM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #41 on: June 22, 2013, 04:01:19 AM »

Scholastic epistemology and its latest product - a modern deconstructionist theology based on the occult concept of personality as the subject of initiation of the divine reality, claiming that the Father, by His personal existence and drawing up of other hypostases, according to his will and at His discretion establishes the essence of divinity is an obvious attempt to present a hyper-essential nature of divinity as a personal quality and status of Father’s hypostasis, for an evidence of the ontological primacy of personality.

Is this about the Bishop Hierotheos Vlachos vs. Bishop John Zizioulas debate?

Actually, it's about the theology of Metropolitan John Zizioulas

Actually, it's about an odd reading of the writings of Metropolitan John of Pergamon.

That's for shore, it has nothing to do with IoanC .
Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #42 on: June 22, 2013, 07:21:13 AM »

Scholastic epistemology and its latest product - a modern deconstructionist theology based on the occult concept of personality as the subject of initiation of the divine reality, claiming that the Father, by His personal existence and drawing up of other hypostases, according to his will and at His discretion establishes the essence of divinity is an obvious attempt to present a hyper-essential nature of divinity as a personal quality and status of Father’s hypostasis, for an evidence of the ontological primacy of personality.

Is this about the Bishop Hierotheos Vlachos vs. Bishop John Zizioulas debate?

Actually, it's about the theology of Metropolitan John Zizioulas

Actually, it's about an odd reading of the writings of Metropolitan John of Pergamon.

That's for shore, it has nothing to do with IoanC .

So, how come I'm in the middle of it?  Smiley
Logged

IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #43 on: June 22, 2013, 07:22:11 AM »

Krotok, whose theology did you present in your initial post?
Logged

krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #44 on: June 22, 2013, 07:58:28 AM »

Such a teaching abolishes the very metaphysics, because according to it, actually there is no such an uncreated and hyper-natural essence of Godhead, and a divinity itself is the result of an arbitrary oddity and diversity, ie, modes of a being (community) of a certain three, and moreover, that their mutual relations of such a vicarious and titular character are the only essence of the divinity itself, or otherwise, that the modes of coexistence are an emanation of their identicalness to a single essence. All of that, leads us to the conclusion that it is a case of a reverse Sabellianism, that, according to the unifying principle of an essence-creative relationships, by the modalities of identity emanates the same essence.
Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #45 on: June 22, 2013, 08:02:35 AM »

Krotok, whose theology did you present in your initial post?

It's completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the truth.
Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #46 on: June 22, 2013, 08:23:23 AM »

Such a teaching abolishes the very metaphysics, because according to it, actually there is no such an uncreated and hyper-natural essence of Godhead, and a divinity itself is the result of an arbitrary oddity and diversity, ie, modes of a being (community) of a certain three, and moreover, that their mutual relations of such a vicarious and titular character are the only essence of the divinity itself, or otherwise, that the modes of coexistence are an emanation of their identicalness to a single essence. All of that, leads us to the conclusion that it is a case of a reverse Sabellianism, that, according to the unifying principle of an essence-creative relationships, by the modalities of identity emanates the same essence.

Did you see my question?
Logged

krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #47 on: June 22, 2013, 08:38:18 AM »

The highlight of this completely non-Orthodox teachings is being reached by claiming that "God is one just because of the Father", ie, due to the unique source of His personal existence, or in other words, God is not one by the equality and uniqueness of His divine being that is indivisibly present in the Holy Trinity as the same and unique Godhead in all of them, but, becouse of the sole causer of their distinctive existence in the person of God the Father.
Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #48 on: June 22, 2013, 08:44:38 AM »

The highlight of this completely non-Orthodox teachings is being reached by claiming that "God is one just because of the Father", ie, due to the unique source of His personal existence, or in other words, God is not one by the equality and uniqueness of His divine being that is indivisibly present in the Holy Trinity as the same and unique Godhead in all of them, but, becouse of the sole causer of their distinctive existence in the person of God the Father.

Did you see my question?
Logged

IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #49 on: June 22, 2013, 08:45:47 AM »

I am not asking you what matters, but whose theology you are representing?
Logged

Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #50 on: June 22, 2013, 09:18:44 AM »

I am not asking you what matters, but whose theology you are representing?

Not Pergamon's, so Naupactus.  Roll Eyes

Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,173


theologian by day, bard by night


« Reply #51 on: June 22, 2013, 09:21:49 AM »

I am not asking you what matters, but whose theology you are representing?

Not Pergamon's, so Naupactus.  Roll Eyes



And this is a reference to... who? Met. Hierotheos? This whole thread has me scratching my head...  Cool
Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #52 on: June 22, 2013, 09:37:25 AM »

And this is a reference to... who? Met. Hierotheos?

Precisely, my dear Watson!  Tongue
Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #53 on: June 22, 2013, 10:23:37 AM »

The highlight of this completely non-Orthodox teachings is being reached by claiming that "God is one just because of the Father", ie, due to the unique source of His personal existence, or in other words, God is not one by the equality and uniqueness of His divine being that is indivisibly present in the Holy Trinity as the same and unique Godhead in all of them, but, becouse of the sole causer of their distinctive existence in the person of God the Father.

God is one because there is only one Father. Otherwise, there would be three gods. If you don't bring into question the relationship among The Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then you can't really have a God, just three unique and equal persons. In other words, The Son is not God because He is unique and equal to The Father, but because He is of The Father, The Son of The Father. Same in regards to The Holy Spirit. This doesn't mean that The Son and The Spirit are not unique and equal, but that's not what explains the oneness of God.
Logged

krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #54 on: June 23, 2013, 06:37:06 AM »

The highlight of this completely non-Orthodox teachings is being reached by claiming that "God is one just because of the Father", ie, due to the unique source of His personal existence, or in other words, God is not one by the equality and uniqueness of His divine being that is indivisibly present in the Holy Trinity as the same and unique Godhead in all of them, but, becouse of the sole causer of their distinctive existence in the person of God the Father.

God is one because there is only one Father. Otherwise, there would be three gods. If you don't bring into question the relationship among The Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then you can't really have a God, just three unique and equal persons. In other words, The Son is not God because He is unique and equal to The Father, but because He is of The Father, The Son of The Father. Same in regards to The Holy Spirit. This doesn't mean that The Son and The Spirit are not unique and equal, but that's not what explains the oneness of God.

... in the sense that even the Father Himself becomes God as the fact of his personality and as the consequence of His relationships within the Holy Trinity, that is to say, that His divine being arises as a side effect of His personal existence.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2013, 06:38:35 AM by krotok » Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #55 on: June 23, 2013, 07:09:55 AM »

The main exponent of this dangerous science, persistently trying to impose the ontological primacy of the notion of personhood and to establish the subjectivism as a source of a being, besides the features of a recognition of God the Father that were determined by the holy fathers and established by the Holy Spirit, for Him as a monarch and a sole causer of the Trinitarian personal existence of Godhead, ascribes to the person of God the Father a completely unfamiliar and uncharacteristic trait, that even for Himself He causes His own divine being, ie, that the Father attributively imagines, deifies, and by His distinctive discretion,  brings Himself in to existence (creates oneself?) as an absolute being.
Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #56 on: June 23, 2013, 07:12:34 AM »

The highlight of this completely non-Orthodox teachings is being reached by claiming that "God is one just because of the Father", ie, due to the unique source of His personal existence, or in other words, God is not one by the equality and uniqueness of His divine being that is indivisibly present in the Holy Trinity as the same and unique Godhead in all of them, but, becouse of the sole causer of their distinctive existence in the person of God the Father.

God is one because there is only one Father. Otherwise, there would be three gods. If you don't bring into question the relationship among The Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then you can't really have a God, just three unique and equal persons. In other words, The Son is not God because He is unique and equal to The Father, but because He is of The Father, The Son of The Father. Same in regards to The Holy Spirit. This doesn't mean that The Son and The Spirit are not unique and equal, but that's not what explains the oneness of God.

... in the sense that even the Father Himself becomes God as the fact of his personality and as the consequence of His relationships within the Holy Trinity, that is to say, that His divine being arises as a side effect of His personal existence.

God The Father does not become God; He is God, and by saying this, it is not His divinity that is attested, but His being The Father and the ultimate authority. You keep bringing into question God's "being", but God is not a being and doesn't have a being; only creatures do.
Logged

IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #57 on: June 23, 2013, 07:18:30 AM »

The main exponent of this dangerous science, persistently trying to impose the ontological primacy of the notion of personhood and to establish the subjectivism as a source of a being, besides the features of a recognition of God the Father that were determined by the holy fathers and established by the Holy Spirit, for Him as a monarch and a sole causer of the Trinitarian personal existence of Godhead, ascribes to the person of God the Father a completely unfamiliar and uncharacteristic trait, that even for Himself He causes His own divine being, ie, that the Father attributively imagines, deifies, and by His distinctive discretion,  brings Himself in to existence (creates oneself?) as an absolute being.

I never supported the fact that God's person-hood presides over His "nature". In fact, I keep saying that God's nature is unknowable. You keep relating to God's nature as if it is something, knowable, a certainty, so on.
Logged

krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #58 on: June 23, 2013, 07:24:56 AM »

According to this, it turns out that Christians really do not have a unique and consubstantial God, but, instead, a community of gods on the agreed principles of mutual co-existence, by which, they dynamicaly relational establish the identity of each other as the nature and the essence of their community.
Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #59 on: June 23, 2013, 07:34:18 AM »

According to this, it turns out that Christians really do not have a unique and consubstantial God, but, instead, a community of gods on the agreed principles of mutual co-existence, by which, they dynamicaly relational establish the identity of each other as the nature and the essence of their community.

They do have a con-substantial God (not sure what you mean by unique), but this God is not a collection of objects, or natures, but of persons who relate to one another in the fashion of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They are so. It's not something "mutual"; they're not pretending to be Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You do not pray to God: "our God who are in Heaven", but "our Father who are in Heaven", and all of our prayers make sure to make it clear that we are not praying to a generic god.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2013, 07:35:08 AM by IoanC » Logged

krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #60 on: June 23, 2013, 07:54:57 AM »


The Metropolitan (Zizioulas) ontology theory of personality is cunning attempt of interpretation of the Orthodox patristic theology in the light of postmodern philosophy of existentialism, which, as based on atheistic humanism, seeks to justify the decadence of unfaithful mankind, relativising and reducing the dignity of a human nature in its concrete individual existence within the historical context of the world and civilization, liberating the conscience of an individual from an absolute, moral, right and true model of a human being, subordinating it to a relative, ethically correct, an unscrupulous and hypocritically adjustable likeness in the function of an imperative of our own survival, of course, obscurely understood in the domain of existence.
Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #61 on: June 23, 2013, 07:57:25 AM »


The Metropolitan (Zizioulas) ontology theory of personality is cunning attempt of interpretation of the Orthodox patristic theology in the light of postmodern philosophy of existentialism, which, as based on atheistic humanism, seeks to justify the decadence of unfaithful mankind, relativising and reducing the dignity of a human nature in its concrete individual existence within the historical context of the world and civilization, liberating the conscience of an individual from an absolute, moral, right and true model of a human being, subordinating it to a relative, ethically correct, an unscrupulous and hypocritically adjustable likeness in the function of an imperative of our own survival, of course, obscurely understood in the domain of existence.

I have nothing to do with Zizioulas personally. More along Fr. Dumitru Staniloae who says "God is pure subjectivity and the same time ontological", and other persons that I have posted on my blog.
Logged

IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #62 on: June 23, 2013, 08:01:06 AM »

So, let me re-phrase. If Zizioulas says what you described above, then I disagree with him to such a degree that we are saying completely different things. I would appreciate it if you did not say that I support his views.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2013, 08:01:17 AM by IoanC » Logged

Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #63 on: June 23, 2013, 09:08:12 AM »

So, let me re-phrase. If Zizioulas says what you described above, then I disagree with him to such a degree that we are saying completely different things. I would appreciate it if you did not say that I support his views.

Met. John accused Met. Hierotheos in a public letter of misquoting his writings and misinterpreting his ideas. Krotok didn't even quote him once...
« Last Edit: June 23, 2013, 09:15:16 AM by Romaios » Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #64 on: June 23, 2013, 09:26:33 AM »

Personally, I generally support what Hierotheos has to say. And, what I've heard about Zizioulas so far (and he is very new to me) is stuff I don't agree with. However, I don't even know why Krotok mentioned the two persons in reference to my own blog posts since I have not represented either Hierotheos and Zizioulas. At any rate, if Krotok thinks that I am similar to Zizioulas, I can't stop him even though I disagree. However, he should stop associating me with any of two persons themselves and not just that -- since I mentioned explicitly that I disagree with Zizioulas as Krotok presented him. Not only I haven't heard about him until now, but I disagree with what appears to be his theology. That being said, I don't know why Krotok keeps ignoring what I say and instead wants to fit me into one of his categories. I am not upset, but I think he's doing himself a disservice.  He can just say he disagrees with me, but instead wants to say that I am totally wrong and infected, so on ... I did not claim that I am perfect, just presented my own thoughts. I am meditating on Fr. Dumitru Staniloae primarily and other people that I have quoted in addition to what I know from The Fathers.

Anyway, the big question for me is who is Krotok actually basing his initial post upon. I simply would like to investigate the "lineage" of his own thinking, but he keeps dodging the question by putting me as a person in a bad light, but wait a minute: why is that you Krotok are right and what do you have to support yourself?
Logged

krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #65 on: June 23, 2013, 05:12:24 PM »

Just following the example of existentialism, Metropolitan Zizioulas realizes the existence only ecstatically, in the ambiental and environmental milieu that to individuals is only an external, meditative and variable fact of their subjective identity. This spiritual mediation of the mediocre entity of so called community, that substitutes the being of own consciousness and disables subjectivity of a sovereign existence, instead of enabling the growth of an individual in to a person, it turns the faint-hearted individuals in the weapons of utilitarian collectivism, ie, into marionettes and articulators of somebody’s arbitrariness.
Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #66 on: June 23, 2013, 05:46:56 PM »

And even more than that, by his views, he declaim himself as a fanatical follower of deconstructionism, a hardened opponent of the very idea of immanence and a spiritual sworn brother to the greatest nihilists as such are Derrida, Levinas, Heidegger and Nietzsche. How else to qualify his views that all the creation, since composed from nothingness ("ex nihilo", the Latin way he misinterpreted the biblical original expression "out of nothing"), is by nature and essentially worthless, meaningless and futile.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #67 on: June 23, 2013, 05:48:54 PM »

Just following the example of existentialism, Metropolitan Zizioulas realizes the existence only ecstatically, in the ambiental and environmental milieu that to individuals is only an external, meditative and variable fact of their subjective identity. This spiritual mediation of the mediocre entity of so called community, that substitutes the being of own consciousness and disables subjectivity of a sovereign existence, instead of enabling the growth of an individual in to a person, it turns the faint-hearted individuals in the weapons of utilitarian collectivism, ie, into marionettes and articulators of somebody’s arbitrariness.

I wish broadsheets were still in fashion. We cudda been famous.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #68 on: June 23, 2013, 06:03:08 PM »

And even more than that, by his views, he declaim himself as a fanatical follower of deconstructionism, a hardened opponent of the very idea of immanence and a spiritual sworn brother to the greatest nihilists as such are Derrida, Levinas, Heidegger and Nietzsche. How else to qualify his views that all the creation, since composed from nothingness ("ex nihilo", the Latin way he misinterpreted the biblical original expression "out of nothing"), is by nature and essentially worthless, meaningless and futile.

Of such the heterodox reasons, on deeming the death for a loss and the end of the existence of nothingness, Metropolitan Zizioulas founds his own fatal doctrine of the mortality of the human soul.
Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #69 on: June 24, 2013, 06:09:34 AM »

Just following the example of existentialism, Metropolitan Zizioulas realizes the existence only ecstatically, in the ambiental and environmental milieu that to individuals is only an external, meditative and variable fact of their subjective identity. This spiritual mediation of the mediocre entity of so called community, that substitutes the being of own consciousness and disables subjectivity of a sovereign existence, instead of enabling the growth of an individual in to a person, it turns the faint-hearted individuals in the weapons of utilitarian collectivism, ie, into marionettes and articulators of somebody’s arbitrariness.

Did you make this thread to counteract Met. Zizioulas, or why? What is it about really?
Nice selection of words, by the way.  Roll Eyes
Logged

krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #70 on: June 24, 2013, 07:44:31 AM »

I am just disputing his teaching of theology. Thanks.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2013, 07:45:06 AM by krotok » Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,768


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #71 on: June 24, 2013, 10:14:49 AM »

I know this is complicated, academic "stuff." But, really, you folks need editors; in most graduate schools this material would face  the "red pencil of doom." Clarity of thought has to be expressed with clarity of writing or else you lose your intended audience. Perhaps something is lost in translation, but ....
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,317



« Reply #72 on: June 24, 2013, 10:37:09 AM »

I know this is complicated, academic "stuff." But, really, you folks need editors; in most graduate schools this material would face  the "red pencil of doom." Clarity of thought has to be expressed with clarity of writing or else you lose your intended audience. Perhaps something is lost in translation, but ....
+1
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,173


theologian by day, bard by night


« Reply #73 on: June 24, 2013, 02:09:28 PM »

Perhaps things are a bit clearer when he writes in his native language.  Smiley
Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #74 on: June 24, 2013, 02:29:21 PM »

Don't you guys get tired of posting in threads you don't really care to pay attention to and get seriously involved in? Honestly, it's sad.
Logged

TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,317



« Reply #75 on: June 24, 2013, 02:32:43 PM »

Don't you guys get tired of posting in threads you don't really care to pay attention to and get seriously involved in? Honestly, it's sad.
If I only posted on threads that I really cared about, I probably would only post about once a week.  Wink
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,173


theologian by day, bard by night


« Reply #76 on: June 24, 2013, 02:33:32 PM »

Don't you guys get tired of posting in threads you don't really care to pay attention to and get seriously involved in? Honestly, it's sad.

I ordered Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church by Met. John Zizioulas. Whether that will help me make sense of this thread I don't know. His not being a native English speaker does make it harder to understand him. Sorry if that's impolite to say.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2013, 02:34:29 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #77 on: June 24, 2013, 02:37:40 PM »

Don't you guys get tired of posting in threads you don't really care to pay attention to and get seriously involved in? Honestly, it's sad.

I ordered Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church by Met. John Zizioulas. Whether that will help me make sense of this thread I don't know. His not being a native English speaker does make it harder to understand him. Sorry if that's impolite to say.

Well, me posting replies to this thread did not make things easier either. Why did ever do it?  Embarrassed
« Last Edit: June 24, 2013, 02:37:49 PM by IoanC » Logged

TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,317



« Reply #78 on: June 24, 2013, 03:21:19 PM »

Actually, I regret my first post in this thread because now it pops up whenever I click new replies to my post and I think:  Oh, what wittiness will I see here?  And then I get this thread that I don't understand anything that is written and I cry.  Cry
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #79 on: June 24, 2013, 03:37:26 PM »

If you actually understand what he is arguing against, you can understand his posts. If you don't understand Met. John, which I've met almost none who do, then you won't understand what drives his critique.

Forget his native language, his posts are veritable works of art whether you understand his point or not, till he went the profane route of attacking Met. John and his theoretical approaching explicitly.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #80 on: June 24, 2013, 03:38:27 PM »

Don't you guys get tired of posting in threads you don't really care to pay attention to and get seriously involved in? Honestly, it's sad.

I ordered Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church by Met. John Zizioulas. Whether that will help me make sense of this thread I don't know. His not being a native English speaker does make it harder to understand him. Sorry if that's impolite to say.

You gave up on Heidegger. You won't understand the Metropolitan in any serious manner.

Enjoy!
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #81 on: June 24, 2013, 03:42:36 PM »

And even more than that, by his views, he declaim himself as a fanatical follower of deconstructionism

I love your posts as the expressing the limit of the American language, but since you have gone so quotidian as to make such a statement, could you please let me know where the Metropolitan "declaim himself as a fanatical follower of deconstructionism"?

This seems radically at odds with his work over all. He might in the end, quite to his own chagrin, be forever a simple Heideggerian, but I've never heard him profess something so stupid as being a follower of "deconstructionism".
« Last Edit: June 24, 2013, 03:42:57 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #82 on: June 24, 2013, 03:50:13 PM »

a spiritual sworn brother to the greatest nihilists as such are Derrida, Levinas, Heidegger and Nietzsche

OK, none of the above are nihilists.

Let me tell you what a nihilist, so we can move on. Let's be stupid and boil a nihilist down to two rather simple notions.

Someone holding the view that the world is the worst of all possible worlds (see Schopenhauer). Or that is it is at least on balance one of the worst.

Someone believing that there is no way of distinguishing the better from the worse. (see Nietzsche as the opponent par excellence of such a notion).

Now if you can demonstrate in a relatively facile manner any of the men you listed fall into either of these two definitions, I will agree. Otherwise, like most others, you are incredibly wrong as I can demonstrate rather easily Nietzsche (good grief what is his attempt if nothing than an attempt to combat nihilism) nor any of the others were simple nihilists. Now, Heidegger might argue that Nietzsche himself ended up in the metaphysical death trap he was trying to turn upside down. And Derrida can argue Heidegger too caught in the same trap. And. And. And.

But this would amount to the statement that everyone is a nihilist. Which might be the case; however, not in any polemical sense in which you mean it.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2013, 03:50:38 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,173


theologian by day, bard by night


« Reply #83 on: June 24, 2013, 04:21:36 PM »

You gave up on Heidegger. You won't understand the Metropolitan in any serious manner.

Enjoy!

Oh...
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #84 on: June 24, 2013, 04:27:51 PM »

You gave up on Heidegger. You won't understand the Metropolitan in any serious manner.

Enjoy!

Oh...

Just kidding, you should be fine. But it might make you want to reach for the Heidegger again nevertheless.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,768


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #85 on: June 24, 2013, 04:54:51 PM »

Don't you guys get tired of posting in threads you don't really care to pay attention to and get seriously involved in? Honestly, it's sad.

I've tried to follow the argument, but style is an important element of rhetoric. If you want to post in Greek or Bulgarian on a forum in either language that's fine, but if you are trying to post important things for an English speaking audience, you can not come across like a college freshman with a thesaurus. I make no apology for sounding like an Anglophile elitist.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #86 on: June 24, 2013, 05:12:04 PM »

Don't you guys get tired of posting in threads you don't really care to pay attention to and get seriously involved in? Honestly, it's sad.

See the above.

Frankly, your comments here might be filed under not involved as you clearly misunderstood the OP from the get go when it was clear you tried to suggest that your own musings were similar to the OP's when they were certainly not.

From post one, anyone with even the little background I have on Orthodox anthropology would know exactly what ax the OP was grinding. I am not sure if I agree with his critique of the Metropolitan, but I certainly agree with his dismissal of your own formulations here about personhood or whatever the lines you quote from the Romanian Father you used. "God is pure subjectivity while ontological" or some other such nonsense.

I can't even begin to imagine what such a statement is supposed to even mean. Frankly, Krotok is more intelligible.

So to the charge of not being involved, I would suggest you presume less and attempt to understand more. If you are Orthodox or have some tangential interest in Orthodoxy and write about personhood and have not made the attempt to become familiar with arguably the most productive Orthodox theologian in centuries, I am not sure how serious to take your involvement in the subject at all.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,352


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #87 on: June 24, 2013, 05:17:37 PM »

I know this is complicated, academic "stuff." But, really, you folks need editors; in most graduate schools this material would face  the "red pencil of doom." Clarity of thought has to be expressed with clarity of writing or else you lose your intended audience. Perhaps something is lost in translation, but ....

+2
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #88 on: June 24, 2013, 05:25:42 PM »

Don't you guys get tired of posting in threads you don't really care to pay attention to and get seriously involved in? Honestly, it's sad.

I've tried to follow the argument, but style is an important element of rhetoric. If you want to post in Greek or Bulgarian on a forum in either language that's fine, but if you are trying to post important things for an English speaking audience, you can not come across like a college freshman with a thesaurus. I make no apology for sounding like an Anglophile elitist.

I don't know. Clarity presupposes a certain metaphysical orientation. And lack of "clarity" has been a critique leveled at nearly every productive thinker throughout time.

This is not to say some don't confuse obscurantism with profundity. But from Plato, Hegel, Heidgger, etc., that is to say those thinkers who truly matter and have allowed the advent of thought to shape the world more than others, have been decried as unclear and obscurant, even when pains were taken by these men to conform to the level of pedestrian intelligibility of those around them.

Thinking simply is not for everyone. Especially thought which thinks the limits of its own ground.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,352


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #89 on: June 24, 2013, 05:28:39 PM »

Don't you guys get tired of posting in threads you don't really care to pay attention to and get seriously involved in? Honestly, it's sad.

Dem guys like to troll. If they did not troll, then their post count would suffer tremendously, and we could read through all the posts here daily in no time.

Honestly, after reading krotok's posts in this thread, I cannot tell if Boris is disputing someone's work, if he is merely spouting his own theology, or if he is presenting someone else's theological works. It is very confusing. I have studied theology in college, but this takes the cake. Since there is a lack of references in krotok's meanderings, I cannot tell if he personally believes in a community of gods or in the one Triune Godhead. Furthermore, does krotok really believe that the Father is becoming God, or is krotok quoting or misquoting someone else? Therefore, I do not know if Boris is truly an Orthodox Christian, a heretic, or a Muslim.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2013, 05:32:21 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #90 on: June 24, 2013, 05:31:02 PM »

What the Metropolitan Zizioulas overlooked in his doctrine of being and existence is the fact that non-being is not an essence, does not precedes the existence, neither the being, neither immortality, nor any of the virtues that are of uncreated deeds of God, so that does not ontologically conditions or determines the power and ability of God's creation, neither created beings itself, to what extent they will naturally participate in the divine virtues and deeds. The creation "out of nothing" does not condition the creatures with the natural tendency toward nothingness, but rather, to an existence, because it deprives them of the ability to decompose at something and as such disappear.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2013, 05:49:28 PM by krotok » Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #91 on: June 24, 2013, 05:49:23 PM »

What the Metropolitan Zizioulas overlooked in his doctrine of being and existence is the fact that non-being is not an essence, does not precedes the existence, neither the being, neither immortality, nor any of the virtues that are of uncreated deeds of God, so that does not ontologically conditions or determines the power and ability of God's creation, neither created beings itself, to what extent they will naturally participate in the divine virtues and deeds.

Krotok, I am not an expert on the Metropolitan so much that I can quote him off the top of my head. (In fact, I lent out my writings of his, so I don't have access to them). However, I have a pretty good grasp of his orientation, so I would like to see where the Met. treats non-being as an essence.

Krotok, to be honest, I have my own criticisms of the Met., but I think he is incredibly important as he brought Orthodox thought out of the "Patristic" era and has engaged head on with contemporary thought.

As much as he relies on the insights of contemporary thought, he remains very critical of the Heideggerian project, if you want to call it that.

He may just end up taking non-existence as an essence, if you can make that clear to me, that would be incredible.

But I understand if you don't have the time.

In any case, I do enjoy the posts, even your "style". I wish I had my texts now.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2013, 05:49:42 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #92 on: June 24, 2013, 05:50:40 PM »

What the Metropolitan Zizioulas overlooked in his doctrine of being and existence is the fact that non-being is not an essence, does not precedes the existence, neither the being, neither immortality, nor any of the virtues that are of uncreated deeds of God, so that does not ontologically conditions or determines the power and ability of God's creation, neither created beings itself, to what extent they will naturally participate in the divine virtues and deeds.

Krotok, I am not an expert on the Metropolitan so much that I can quote him off the top of my head. (In fact, I lent out my writings of his, so I don't have access to them). However, I have a pretty good grasp of his orientation, so I would like to see where the Met. treats non-being as an essence.

Krotok, to be honest, I have my own criticisms of the Met., but I think he is incredibly important as he brought Orthodox thought out of the "Patristic" era and has engaged head on with contemporary thought.

As much as he relies on the insights of contemporary thought, he remains very critical of the Heideggerian project, if you want to call it that.

He may just end up taking non-existence as an essence, if you can make that clear to me, that would be incredible.

But I understand if you don't have the time.

In any case, I do enjoy the posts, even your "style". I wish I had my texts now.

 Smiley
Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #93 on: June 24, 2013, 06:12:54 PM »

What the Metropolitan Zizioulas overlooked in his doctrine of being and existence is the fact that non-being is not an essence, does not precedes the existence, neither the being, neither immortality, nor any of the virtues that are of uncreated deeds of God, so that does not ontologically conditions or determines the power and ability of God's creation, neither created beings itself, to what extent they will naturally participate in the divine virtues and deeds. The creation "out of nothing" does not condition the creatures with the natural tendency toward nothingness, but rather, to an existence, because it deprives them of the ability to decompose at something and as such disappear.

This misconception stems from the ungraceful reasoning and a distorted interpretation of the words of the Holy Scripture and the Holy Tradition, that God created from nothingness (ex nihilo), artistically processing the content of non-authenticity of the so called “nothing”, so to speak, by converting nothingness into being, which, together with such claims, presents the malicious oxymoron borrowed from a totally false fabrications nihilism.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,669


« Reply #94 on: June 24, 2013, 08:16:01 PM »

krotok, you argued earlier that it is incorrect to say that the unity of God follows from the Monarchy of the Father. You seem to be arguing that the unity of God follows from the shared Divine Nature. Is this true or are you arguing something else?
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #95 on: June 24, 2013, 08:18:37 PM »

Please do not stop this thread.  The debate over personhood is very entertaining.
Logged
Hiwot
Christ is Risen!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 1,959


Job 19:25-27


« Reply #96 on: June 24, 2013, 11:55:19 PM »

Don't you guys get tired of posting in threads you don't really care to pay attention to and get seriously involved in? Honestly, it's sad.

I ordered Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church by Met. John Zizioulas. Whether that will help me make sense of this thread I don't know. His not being a native English speaker does make it harder to understand him. Sorry if that's impolite to say.


You need the other book for this thread I think, Communion and Otherness.
Logged

To God be the Glory in all things! Amen!

Only pray for me, that God would give me both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but truly will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one. St.Ignatius of Antioch.Epistle to the Romans.
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,375



« Reply #97 on: June 25, 2013, 03:54:56 PM »

What the Metropolitan Zizioulas overlooked in his doctrine of being and existence is the fact that non-being is not an essence, does not precedes the existence, neither the being, neither immortality, nor any of the virtues that are of uncreated deeds of God, so that does not ontologically conditions or determines the power and ability of God's creation, neither created beings itself, to what extent they will naturally participate in the divine virtues and deeds. The creation "out of nothing" does not condition the creatures with the natural tendency toward nothingness, but rather, to an existence, because it deprives them of the ability to decompose at something and as such disappear.

This misconception stems from the ungraceful reasoning and a distorted interpretation of the words of the Holy Scripture and the Holy Tradition, that God created from nothingness (ex nihilo), artistically processing the content of non-authenticity of the so called “nothing”, so to speak, by converting nothingness into being, which, together with such claims, presents the malicious oxymoron borrowed from a totally false fabrications nihilism.

 His Eminences train of thought seems to counter Platonist. Platonism entered the western Church doctrine around the Renaissance era and flourished in the west. While Protagoras, Socrates and Aristotle Had a differing stance on the Essence debate. The Essence topic is subjective to ones understanding and most who seem to have acquired knowledge are usually giving there own interpretation. Which is correct only to themselves. laugh
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #98 on: June 25, 2013, 04:25:09 PM »

What the Metropolitan Zizioulas overlooked in his doctrine of being and existence is the fact that non-being is not an essence, does not precedes the existence, neither the being, neither immortality, nor any of the virtues that are of uncreated deeds of God, so that does not ontologically conditions or determines the power and ability of God's creation, neither created beings itself, to what extent they will naturally participate in the divine virtues and deeds. The creation "out of nothing" does not condition the creatures with the natural tendency toward nothingness, but rather, to an existence, because it deprives them of the ability to decompose at something and as such disappear.

This misconception stems from the ungraceful reasoning and a distorted interpretation of the words of the Holy Scripture and the Holy Tradition, that God created from nothingness (ex nihilo), artistically processing the content of non-authenticity of the so called “nothing”, so to speak, by converting nothingness into being, which, together with such claims, presents the malicious oxymoron borrowed from a totally false fabrications nihilism.

 His Eminences train of thought seems to counter Platonist. Platonism entered the western Church doctrine around the Renaissance era and flourished in the west. While Protagoras, Socrates and Aristotle Had a differing stance on the Essence debate. The Essence topic is subjective to ones understanding and most who seem to have acquired knowledge are usually giving there own interpretation. Which is correct only to themselves. laugh

Plato
Renaissance
Western
Interpretation

Anyone drunk yet?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #99 on: June 25, 2013, 04:51:06 PM »

In fact, he believes that all the creation and its essence are invalid, ie, prone to dissolution and non-being from which it was allegedly substantially composed, which is why he comes to the wrong conclusion that the created nature cannot participate in the existence, life, immutability, and all the other virtues as a deeds of God, since that thereby, according to him, by taking participation in such a deed of the Creator, even a creature might gain natural characteristics of divinity. However, the essence of each creature lies in the cause of, ie, in the word (logos) by which God intended and explained its genesis and existence in eternity, according to which, non-being is absolutely unnatural tendency of distraught and confused consciousness of the gnomically frivolous and bewildered reasonable creatures.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2013, 04:52:31 PM by krotok » Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #100 on: June 26, 2013, 04:27:17 PM »

In addition, Metropolitan argues that the reason for mortality (whereby implies the cessation of an ecstatic existence) of creatures is the fact that they have an actual beginning of their existence, to such a logic, that everything that has a beginning is therefore separated, ie, divided by the time and space of the other creatures and beings, from where he draws an analogy, that therefore it is a subject to a separation, division, dissolution and death. In other words, he claims that everything created, by being determinable and having a beginning of its existence is therefore sentenced to death, and then the dialectically opposite, that what is uncreated has no beginning, nor the end of its existence, and therefore is immortal.
Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #101 on: June 26, 2013, 04:59:03 PM »

But unfortunately for a turbulent syllogism of his, according to St. Gregory Palamas, the divine energies are uncreated, but some of them have a beginning and an end, for example, the creative energy of God, as according to the Holy Scripture, God finished the creation and "rested from all deeds that He had done." If we follow the logic of The Metropolitan, the creative power of God should also has been created​​ and this is precisely the heresy involved in the teaching of the scholasticism of Calabrian Barlaam.
Logged
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,375



« Reply #102 on: June 27, 2013, 09:28:04 AM »

But unfortunately for a turbulent syllogism of his, according to St. Gregory Palamas, the divine energies are uncreated, but some of them have a beginning and an end, for example, the creative energy of God, as according to the Holy Scripture, God finished the creation and "rested from all deeds that He had done." If we follow the logic of The Metropolitan, the creative power of God should also has been created​​ and this is precisely the heresy involved in the teaching of the scholasticism of Calabrian Barlaam.
   One can certainly argue that creation hasn't ended. Cosmologically the creation is still happening. People, planets, stars and animal are born everyday. That in itself indicates the creation is still occurring. The fulfillment of the creation will occur when Christ returns. The story narrates a begin and an end and that is technically when the story will be fulfilled.  Christ stated I am the Alpha and the Omega.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,669


« Reply #103 on: June 27, 2013, 10:32:30 AM »

Are we as individual people actually created, or are we begotten? The distinction is obviously crucial when we speak of the Son of God, for example: "begotten, not made".
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #104 on: June 27, 2013, 12:40:38 PM »

Are we as individual people actually created, or are we begotten?

You are begging that something like an individual person, or people, is something whose existence can be defended.

This is exactly where this thread turns it would seem.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,669


« Reply #105 on: June 27, 2013, 02:18:03 PM »

Are we as individual people actually created, or are we begotten?

You are begging that something like an individual person, or people, is something whose existence can be defended.

This is exactly where this thread turns it would seem.

Er, I thought the existence of personhood was a given. Otherwise our teaching about the Trinity becomes meaningless. Has krotok or someone else been denying the existence of personhood? I can't tell from reading his posts what he's trying to say, so perhaps you could interpret for me.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #106 on: June 27, 2013, 02:39:19 PM »

Are we as individual people actually created, or are we begotten?

You are begging that something like an individual person, or people, is something whose existence can be defended.

This is exactly where this thread turns it would seem.

Er, I thought the existence of personhood was a given. Otherwise our teaching about the Trinity becomes meaningless. Has krotok or someone else been denying the existence of personhood? I can't tell from reading his posts what he's trying to say, so perhaps you could interpret for me.

You were speaking of individual people, which I assume is the same as individual persons. The question which animates the discussion here, I would say is this:

Can a single being be a person?

This is where I think Krotok's confused notion that the Metropolitan's argument is a true existentialism comes from.

That is to say, something like personhood doesn't precede persons. But this doesn't mean however that persons necessarily precede personhood.

One could generalize this to all such "essences" and "instantiations", but to keep it simple, I think it is problematic to say the personhood of the Son comes from the Father as such. The ontological monarchism of the Father can't account for the Son.

I think the Crede is rather clear on this.

We believe in one God.

Then it talks about the persons of this Trinitarian God.

It doesn't follow:

The Eternal Divine Essence.

No.

It says:

The Father.

Well you can't be a father without a child. So the so called "first person" of the Trinity is named and understood in the most clear and shared statement of faith as a person, who is a person in virtue of His Son.

Teasing out how something like personhood and persons arise without either have a traditionally understood ontological priority is complex and what I believe Krotok is railing against.

What say you Krotok and Jonathan?

(FWIW, I am not saying the creed is the most sophisticated working out of the nature of the relations of the Trinity, but I think it is not for nothing it emphasized the persons of the Trinity rather than some pre-existent substance or essence.)
« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 02:40:04 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #107 on: June 27, 2013, 02:41:18 PM »

Krotok, if you ever dig up my simple unfinished musing on personhood thread, I have a feeling I am in for it!

Sometime I would like to go back to your comments about creation ex nihilo.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,669


« Reply #108 on: June 27, 2013, 03:40:42 PM »

The person we call the Son is begotten of the Father, but I don't know if we can say the "personhood" of the Son is, if personhood is supposed to mean something different from person. Is it?
« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 03:41:08 PM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,669


« Reply #109 on: June 27, 2013, 03:42:15 PM »

And it's probably good that the Creed is not sophisticated, since sophistication tends to lead to heresy.
Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #110 on: June 27, 2013, 05:06:55 PM »

Are we as individual people actually created, or are we begotten?

You are begging that something like an individual person, or people, is something whose existence can be defended.

This is exactly where this thread turns it would seem.

An individual is not a person. The person is not a a creature or a being in itself, but the subjectivity of the divinity that is not the result of creation, but of salvation.

P.S. As God is concerned, the creation is complete.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 05:14:49 PM by krotok » Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #111 on: June 27, 2013, 05:12:15 PM »

Are we as individual people actually created, or are we begotten?

You are begging that something like an individual person, or people, is something whose existence can be defended.

This is exactly where this thread turns it would seem.

An individual is not a person. Personality is not a a creature or a being in itself, but the personality of the divinity that is not the result of creation, but of salvation.

P.S. As God is concerned, the creation is complete.

Krotok, you are using three words here: individual, person, and personality.

Let's discard the first, I think you were missing my point to Jonathan.

To the other two.

Could you explain as clearly as you can the difference between person and personality as you are using the terms here.

And then if either or both are apropos God, in virtue of what is God a person or is / has a personality.

Table being in itself for the moment as this is an incredibly loaded term in philosophy with wildly differing ways of understanding it.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #112 on: June 27, 2013, 05:13:38 PM »

And don't let others harsh on your English or style. You are writing in a second language about things most people are incapable of thinking within their native tongue.

If anything, I hope this helps you refine your English usage.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 05:13:55 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #113 on: June 27, 2013, 05:17:06 PM »

And don't let others harsh on your English or style. You are writing in a second language about things most people are incapable of thinking within their native tongue.

If anything, I hope this helps you refine your English usage.

Thanks. I'm trying to make my self clear.
Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #114 on: June 27, 2013, 05:25:40 PM »

Are we as individual people actually created, or are we begotten?

You are begging that something like an individual person, or people, is something whose existence can be defended.

This is exactly where this thread turns it would seem.

An individual is not a person. Personality is not a a creature or a being in itself, but the personality of the divinity that is not the result of creation, but of salvation.

P.S. As God is concerned, the creation is complete.

Krotok, you are using three words here: individual, person, and personality.

Let's discard the first, I think you were missing my point to Jonathan.

To the other two.

Could you explain as clearly as you can the difference between person and personality as you are using the terms here.

And then if either or both are apropos God, in virtue of what is God a person or is / has a personality.

Table being in itself for the moment as this is an incredibly loaded term in philosophy with wildly differing ways of understanding it.

A Person is the one who acts on behalf of divinity, and his charisma is his personality.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,669


« Reply #115 on: June 27, 2013, 05:31:25 PM »

OK, I think I'm starting to actually get what this is about. It is interesting, since we do talk about "God" as a single thing, when in fact God is Three distinct Persons. From there, orthonorm, you seem to wonder how we talk about different people as different things (me, orthonorm, krotok are all different things), but if we all share the same nature, as the Father Son and Spirit share the same nature, are we then not all one being, just as the Trinity is one God?

My understanding is that, in a sense, yes there is a single essence that unites all humanity, and this is how God achieved our salvation, by taking on our nature, which we can then mystically partake of through the Mysteries, even though God was not incarnate in each of our individual persons. And this is surely also part of why we need to see Christ in each other; we need to see how we are all of one essence.

That actually ties in to my original question. The Creation story has God creating all different things and species, but crucially, every living species was also given the ability to regenerate itself afterwards, and I think we're supposed to take that as a distinct process from creation. So wouldn't it be accurate to say, when a new human person is conceived, that a new person has been created, but rather begotten, i.e. the analogy should not be with Creation, but with the eternal begetting of the Son from the Father.

Am I on the right track?
« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 05:35:38 PM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,669


« Reply #116 on: June 27, 2013, 05:33:29 PM »

Are we as individual people actually created, or are we begotten?

You are begging that something like an individual person, or people, is something whose existence can be defended.

This is exactly where this thread turns it would seem.

An individual is not a person. Personality is not a a creature or a being in itself, but the personality of the divinity that is not the result of creation, but of salvation.

P.S. As God is concerned, the creation is complete.

Krotok, you are using three words here: individual, person, and personality.

Let's discard the first, I think you were missing my point to Jonathan.

To the other two.

Could you explain as clearly as you can the difference between person and personality as you are using the terms here.

And then if either or both are apropos God, in virtue of what is God a person or is / has a personality.

Table being in itself for the moment as this is an incredibly loaded term in philosophy with wildly differing ways of understanding it.

A Person is the one who acts on behalf of divinity, and his charisma is his personality.

OK that's still a little obscure. What do you mean "on behalf of"? Is the idea that action itself is of divine origin, and that you can't act without having personality?
Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #117 on: June 27, 2013, 05:52:22 PM »

God is always a person that has a certain personality.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,669


« Reply #118 on: June 27, 2013, 06:00:18 PM »

By "action", of course, we introduce "energy", and the controversy over whether Christ had one or two energies, and then whether He had one or two wills. The Orthodox Church teaches that He has two energies and two wills, appropriate to each nature. We also believe that all Three Persons of the Trinity share a single will and energy according to their shared nature. Yet it doesn't appear to be the case that all human persons share a single will and energy, since our wills are often at odds with each other. But then I think we're not meant to understand this fracturing of humanity as implying there is not a single human will. That confused the will with what the will decides, i.e. different human hypostases use their will, endowed by nature, to make different decisions, but there is still only one human will. This is because the nature of the human will (as created by God) is to be subject to the divine will, which entails that it cannot but be a unified phenomenon.

Another way to put it is that, the true will, in the sense that Christ has it, both divine and human, is rational. A rational will by definition must be unified and in accordance with the divine will. When we decide things contrary to the divine will, we are not in fact exercising our rational will, which is what Christ possessed, but allowing our passions to overcome this rational will. The action of the passions can also be called will, as in willful flesh, but this is not the same thing.
Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #119 on: June 27, 2013, 06:12:03 PM »

The action of life is always founded personally, but it realises by the natural strength, ie, by the divinity of factors.
Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #120 on: June 27, 2013, 06:12:58 PM »

But unfortunately for a turbulent syllogism of his, according to St. Gregory Palamas, the divine energies are uncreated, but some of them have a beginning and an end, for example, the creative energy of God, as according to the Holy Scripture, God finished the creation and "rested from all deeds that He had done." If we follow the logic of The Metropolitan, the creative power of God should also has been created​​ and this is precisely the heresy involved in the teaching of the scholasticism of Calabrian Barlaam.

Therefore, sophistically proclaimed dialectic of created and the uncreated, is not absolutely analogous to the pair of a temporary and the eternal. In the Orthodox theological tradition, morality is not a direct consequence and not derived from createdness of being, and the soul of man, in spite that counts as a creature, it is also an immortal.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,669


« Reply #121 on: June 27, 2013, 06:20:40 PM »

God is always a person that has a certain personality.

OK this is the kind of thing that gets you in trouble. On the face of it, it sounds like you're denying the Trinity, because you assert God is "a person".

Now, I think I know what you meant to say is something like this: God only exists in Persons. In other words, there is no God-in-essence distinct from the Three Persons of the Trinity. Whenever we speak of God, we must always either be referring to the Trinity, or to one of the Trinity. That is absolutely correct. Joseph Farrell wrote an interesting work where he attempts to show how this God-in-essence abstraction is the foundation of the Filioque and Western heretical thought more generally.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,669


« Reply #122 on: June 27, 2013, 06:23:24 PM »

The action of life is always founded personally, but it realises by the natural strength, ie, by the divinity of factors.

I think we need to be careful. The Monoergist and Monothelete controversies showed that will and energy, if by action you mean energy, are properties of the nature, not the person. What is true is that energy must be exercised by a person; it can't exercise itself (again, no God-in-essence exists apart from the Trinity, just as no humanity-in-essence exists apart from humans).

I have no idea what you mean by "divinity of factors". Maybe orthonorm has an idea what you mean.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 06:24:17 PM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #123 on: June 28, 2013, 05:02:43 AM »

The action of life is always founded personally, but it realises by the natural strength, ie, by the divinity of factors.

I have no idea what you mean by "divinity of factors".

Probably "actors", as in persons who act/agents.
Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #124 on: June 28, 2013, 08:10:21 AM »

The action of life is always founded personally, but it realises by the natural strength, ie, by the divinity of factors.

I have no idea what you mean by "divinity of factors".

Probably "actors", as in persons who act/agents.

A factor, a Latin word meaning 'who/which acts'.
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,669


« Reply #125 on: June 28, 2013, 09:48:03 AM »

The action of life is always founded personally, but it realises by the natural strength, ie, by the divinity of factors.

I have no idea what you mean by "divinity of factors".

Probably "actors", as in persons who act/agents.

A factor, a Latin word meaning 'who/which acts'.
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor

As far as I can tell, the word only refers to people in the context of finance or Scottish law. What it meant in Latin is irrelevant; we're using English here.
Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #126 on: July 03, 2013, 05:08:19 PM »

Quote
But unfortunately for a turbulent syllogism of his, according to St. Gregory Palamas, the divine energies are uncreated, but some of them have a beginning and an end, for example, the creative energy of God, as according to the Holy Scripture, God finished the creation and "rested from all deeds that He had done." If we follow the logic of The Metropolitan, the creative power of God should also has been created​​ and this is precisely the heresy involved in the teaching of the scholasticism of Calabrian Barlaam.

Since he considers a being only as a contextual identity of ecstatic differentiation, Metropolitan Zizioulas disputes God's potency and power of creating an eternally existing and indestructible essences, as such is the human soul. He argues that the soul exists only by the grace, losing out of sight that the grace is defined as a conscious and consensual receiving of the complementary, perfecting and deifying gifts of love in the Holy Spirit.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2013, 05:11:37 PM by krotok » Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,173


theologian by day, bard by night


« Reply #127 on: July 03, 2013, 08:23:49 PM »

And don't let others harsh on your English or style. You are writing in a second language about things most people are incapable of thinking within their native tongue.

If anything, I hope this helps you refine your English usage.

Someone saying "I is loving America greatly!" and you telling him "Ignore those who are saying that you have work to do" isn't going to help him.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2013, 08:24:33 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #128 on: July 04, 2013, 06:45:24 AM »

You good! I You friend? Like! OK!
Logged
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,375



« Reply #129 on: July 04, 2013, 12:00:07 PM »

And don't let others harsh on your English or style. You are writing in a second language about things most people are incapable of thinking within their native tongue.

If anything, I hope this helps you refine your English usage.

Someone saying "I is loving America greatly!" and you telling him "Ignore those who are saying that you have work to do" isn't going to help him.
There is a gentler way in which one can correct without being overbearing.  Usually people regress and become defensive when others use reprimanding comments. Some may even responded back harshly in a revengeful way. Sort of counterproductive in my view. All people should try to treat each other respectfully without being condescending.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #130 on: July 05, 2013, 05:38:18 AM »

Quote
But unfortunately for a turbulent syllogism of his, according to St. Gregory Palamas, the divine energies are uncreated, but some of them have a beginning and an end, for example, the creative energy of God, as according to the Holy Scripture, God finished the creation and "rested from all deeds that He had done." If we follow the logic of The Metropolitan, the creative power of God should also has been created​​ and this is precisely the heresy involved in the teaching of the scholasticism of Calabrian Barlaam.

Since he considers a being only as a contextual identity of ecstatic differentiation, Metropolitan Zizioulas disputes God's potency and power of creating an eternally existing and indestructible essences, as such is the human soul. He argues that the soul exists only by the grace, losing out of sight that the grace is defined as a conscious and consensual receiving of the complementary, perfecting and deifying gifts of love in the Holy Spirit.

The rhetorical dilemma according to which the human soul as a created entity can’t possess its own natural power of continuous existence, overlooks the fact that the very constitution of the soul, after all, as well as of each individual creature, is the result of an action of an uncreated and the essence-creative force of God, from which follows, that there is nothing that could be taken into consideration or properly understood, neither for itself could be such as it really is separated from its Creator.
Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #131 on: July 05, 2013, 06:13:32 AM »

The rhetorical dilemma according to which the human soul as a created entity can’t possess its own natural power of continuous existence, overlooks the fact that the very constitution of the soul, after all, as well as of each individual creature, is the result of an action of an uncreated and the essence-creative force of God, from which follows, that there is nothing that could be taken into consideration or properly understood, neither for itself could be such as it really is separated from its Creator.

Thereby guided, since all that happens has become as the result of an impact of the enhypostatic and the uncreated divine energies, therefore, without any exception, not only an essences of all the creatures, but also, each occurrence of their existence, regardless of the character, all the events could be simply considered as of grace, without excluding from subsuming and classifying into the category of grace neither the appearance of the fiercest pain, hatred, falsehood and evil.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2013, 06:23:08 AM by krotok » Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #132 on: July 07, 2013, 04:29:55 PM »

The rhetorical dilemma according to which the human soul as a created entity can’t possess its own natural power of continuous existence, overlooks the fact that the very constitution of the soul, after all, as well as of each individual creature, is the result of an action of an uncreated and the essence-creative force of God, from which follows, that there is nothing that could be taken into consideration or properly understood, neither for itself could be such as it really is separated from its Creator.

Thereby guided, since all that happens has become as the result of an impact of the enhypostatic and the uncreated divine energies, therefore, without any exception, not only an essences of all the creatures, but also, each occurrence of their existence, regardless of the character, all the events could be simply considered as of grace, without excluding from subsuming and classifying into the category of grace neither the appearance of the fiercest pain, hatred, falsehood and evil.

Thus, the Orthodox Christian would not even dare to challenge the truth that all the existence, as well as any virtue of creatures, is in fact, only their participation in the hyper-essential and uncreated energies of the Pantocrator, but, what the idiomatically fallen logic of those who philosophize is unable to comprehend is the fact that the mere participation in the deeds of God is being attained and gained on the basis of natural conformation and establishment of the creatures themselves, ie, depending on their natural abilities that in the final instance characterize each individual essence with the symbolism of its theological significance, whereby, the attributes and properties of all creatures are being transformed into their primarily predetermined functional purpose as the instruments and articulators of the acts of grace – the executive of a comprehensive and mildest will of God, that is love.
Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #133 on: July 09, 2013, 05:42:34 AM »

Thus, the Orthodox Christian would not even dare to challenge the truth that all the existence, as well as any virtue of creatures, is in fact, only their participation in the hyper-essential and uncreated energies of the Pantocrator, but, what the idiomatically fallen logic of those who philosophize is unable to comprehend is the fact that the mere participation in the deeds of God is being attained and gained on the basis of natural conformation and establishment of the creatures themselves, ie, depending on their natural abilities that in the final instance characterize each individual essence with the symbolism of its theological significance, whereby, the attributes and properties of all creatures are being transformed into their primarily predetermined functional purpose as the instruments and articulators of the acts of grace – the executive of a comprehensive and mildest will of God, that is love.

As for us humans, except the predetermination of a reasonable soul as a self-propelled, unstoppable and according to the image of God created, cosmogonically mindful nature of ours, we were given and the cosmological, ie, a devising, judging and nominatively decisive instance of being that we call personality, dedicated for selection, acceptance and implementation of the grace of the Son of God and our Lord Jesus Christ, as an exclusive establisher and perpetrator of our subsistential perfection and maturity eligible of eternal living with God in the communion of the Holy Spirit.
Logged
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,375



« Reply #134 on: July 09, 2013, 03:19:19 PM »

Thus, the Orthodox Christian would not even dare to challenge the truth that all the existence, as well as any virtue of creatures, is in fact, only their participation in the hyper-essential and uncreated energies of the Pantocrator, but, what the idiomatically fallen logic of those who philosophize is unable to comprehend is the fact that the mere participation in the deeds of God is being attained and gained on the basis of natural conformation and establishment of the creatures themselves, ie, depending on their natural abilities that in the final instance characterize each individual essence with the symbolism of its theological significance, whereby, the attributes and properties of all creatures are being transformed into their primarily predetermined functional purpose as the instruments and articulators of the acts of grace – the executive of a comprehensive and mildest will of God, that is love.

As for us humans, except the predetermination of a reasonable soul as a self-propelled, unstoppable and according to the image of God created, cosmogonically mindful nature of ours, we were given and the cosmological, ie, a devising, judging and nominatively decisive instance of being that we call personality, dedicated for selection, acceptance and implementation of the grace of the Son of God and our Lord Jesus Christ, as an exclusive establisher and perpetrator of our subsistential perfection and maturity eligible of eternal living with God in the communion of the Holy Spirit.

     The philosophical debate your referring to is over the platonic philosophy based on the premise that essence precedes existence. That long upheld ideology was challenged in its day and is being challenged today by existential thought which claims that existence precedes essence. A quick web search will yield an abundance of results on the aforementioned philosophies.
    For me the debate is counterproductive in that both philosophies are true to an extent. How do we know that essence precedes existence? Very simple. The moment someone is given a choice and they act on it... An essence is a prerequisite to making a first choice.
   How do we know that existence precedes essence? People change over time. Essence can be who we are at the end. Our learned behavior over time establishes our personality and who we are in essence. Hashing this topic out in a religious context can be a bit overwhelming for the average mind.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #135 on: July 10, 2013, 05:03:17 PM »

With all the respect, I don't agree with you. Sorry.
Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #136 on: July 10, 2013, 05:06:02 PM »

Thus, the Orthodox Christian would not even dare to challenge the truth that all the existence, as well as any virtue of creatures, is in fact, only their participation in the hyper-essential and uncreated energies of the Pantocrator, but, what the idiomatically fallen logic of those who philosophize is unable to comprehend is the fact that the mere participation in the deeds of God is being attained and gained on the basis of natural conformation and establishment of the creatures themselves, ie, depending on their natural abilities that in the final instance characterize each individual essence with the symbolism of its theological significance, whereby, the attributes and properties of all creatures are being transformed into their primarily predetermined functional purpose as the instruments and articulators of the acts of grace – the executive of a comprehensive and mildest will of God, that is love.

As for us humans, except the predetermination of a reasonable soul as a self-propelled, unstoppable and according to the image of God created, cosmogonically mindful nature of ours, we were given and the cosmological, ie, a devising, judging and nominatively decisive instance of being that we call personality, dedicated for selection, acceptance and implementation of the grace of the Son of God and our Lord Jesus Christ, as an exclusive establisher and perpetrator of our subsistential perfection and maturity eligible of eternal living with God in the communion of the Holy Spirit.

The soul is a man, and the body – a world. Man lives in the body like in his own world and that’s the world that, by abstaining, fasting and praying, he should preserve and save in the blessed human shape, in order to gain within it a contribution of his own deification and an eternal holy life. Because human nature is an object, and the person – a subject of life in Christ, where many are one and the same body and the members to one another. The inner man is a plenipotentiary of his soul and the external, in order to took a part in the spiritual life would have to be governed by the soul, subordinating his personality in order of characterisation and healing of the being.
Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #137 on: July 12, 2013, 01:58:05 PM »

One of the greatest misconceptions of modern theology is the confusion and substitution of a notion about personality with the concept of identity of otherness within the community, that thereby, among other things, theoretically conditions the ability of existence and characterizes death as a synonym for the disappearance of the human soul. Teachings that the soul dies loosing the identity and consciousness of itself isn’t true for a reason because the identity is just a manifestation of being, in the field of relations, unlike the person, to which was given the ability of love, ie, of spiritual life.
Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #138 on: July 14, 2013, 08:17:24 AM »

One of the greatest misconceptions of modern theology is the confusion and substitution of a notion about personality with the concept of identity of otherness within the community, that thereby, among other things, theoretically conditions the ability of existence and characterizes death as a synonym for the disappearance of the human soul. Teaching that the soul dies loosing the identity and consciousness of itself isn’t true for a reason because the identity is just a manifestation of being, in the field of relations, unlike the person, to which was given the ability of love, ie, of spiritual life.

But after the final verdict, the beloved identity of the convicted ones completely remains to characterize them in eternity, but, since running out of the capability to be persons, they must continue their damned existence, retaining the identity by which they represented themselves.
Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #139 on: July 14, 2013, 08:41:06 AM »

One of the greatest misconceptions of modern theology is the confusion and substitution of a notion about personality with the concept of identity of otherness within the community, that thereby, among other things, theoretically conditions the ability of existence and characterizes death as a synonym for the disappearance of the human soul. Teaching that the soul dies loosing the identity and consciousness of itself isn’t true for a reason because the identity is just a manifestation of being, in the field of relations, unlike the person, to which was given the ability of love, ie, of spiritual life.

But after the final verdict, the beloved identity of the convicted ones completely remains to characterize them in eternity, but, since running out of the capability to be persons, they must continue their damned existence, retaining the identity by which they represented themselves.

It is wrong to claim that the existence in hell happens due to the grace, because grace is a transmission of the whole will and providence of God to His spiritual creatures the most important one of which is the human soul, to their natural structure, through their effective compliance and grateful acceptance.
Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #140 on: July 14, 2013, 09:31:03 AM »

If the existence of a soul in everlasting hellish torturing is the result of an action of grace, then it would certainly be a subject to rejection and disappearance, respectively, of an effective nihilism. In contrast, the existence in hell continues just because of the natural communion of spiritual beings with the life-giving, all-pervasive, uncreated and eternal energies of God, and does not depend on a reasonable compliance of souls that stay in it, so it can not be considered as a grace that is personal and subjective communion with the will of God, which is indeed the most precious gift one can get, accept or reject, while the rest is a matter of structural necessity of the spiritual essence of humanity.
Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #141 on: July 14, 2013, 04:27:59 PM »

Finally, could we regard the unwanted or undesired as some kind of a gift? Because, those who are tormented in hell no longer care about a life and existence, and would gladly, if only they could, and if it somehow depends of their will, immediately vanish into nothingness! Nonetheless, just because of her freedom from the threat and fear of disappearance, and hence the unconditioned and unlimited by weakness or impotence, a way and character of her subjectivity, the existence of a soul is by creation breathed and woven into her nature, exactly for the sake of which, she must not and can’t reject it subjectively, because the quality of a being is the man’s source of dignity and freedom of existence, and by committing suicide, the man does not refuses only his particular appearance as the existence of an individual, but, its general human cause, reason and purpose, which is to fulfill the designation and purposefulness of humanity to its grateful and sacramental inclusion in the Theanthropic organism of Christ’s Church and a blessed essential existence empowered and glorified by the deity.
Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #142 on: July 17, 2013, 05:46:23 AM »

In the extremely suspicious opus of his, the Metropolitan Zizioulas, to say so, does not even touched upon the issue of Incarnation of the Son of God, probably, in order to avoid a substantial foundation of the gospel of Christ and the irreplaceable role and importance of the human nature in the constitution of our salvation, because, if the being was only a phenomenon of mutual relations, The Son of God would have never incarnate in a man from the Virgin Mother of God, the One that has emerged from the royal lineage of king David and from the knee of the high priest Aron, in order to, starting from Himself, by Himself and within Himself, establish and made a humankind in the holiness of the royal priesthood!
Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #143 on: July 18, 2013, 04:36:05 PM »

Thereby, to each one of us has entrusted the duty and liability for the soul as an overall universe of humanity, encouraging us on the accomplishment of living boldly, resolutely and steadfastly in pious holiness, that therefor, through abstinence and by keeping away from sin to gain grace and subjectivity of lords and rulers of our own nature and to become an emperors of soul’s forces of all humanity that is invested in us without any residue through the Christ and the Word of God, in order to made of ourselves, as of the sinful passions liberated people, a forth fruits worthy of repentance, such that could be offered to God to the adoption and sanctification in Christ, God and the Savior of mankind.
Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #144 on: July 19, 2013, 05:03:21 PM »

The Orthodox Tradition of the notion of human existence is most concisely expressed in the liturgical call to “commit ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ our God”, which clearly shows to every Orthodox Christian that he posses in oneself his own authentically subsistent, unquenchable and indestructible natural existence, that, if he wants for oneself and for his loved ones, to get enriched by the presence and the attributes of the divine being, following the example the Most Holy Theotokos, he may hand it over to Christ our God.
Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #145 on: July 20, 2013, 10:18:48 AM »

So, if Heidegger, only after two thousand years came on the idea to point out that issue right in the focus of interest of philosophy and finally take into consideration the meaning of essence and being, then, we must not forget that the Orthodox have always kept in mind such a wisdom, that it is about the eternal well-being, which isn't an unambiguous and simply expedient, but, according to a diverse predetermined natures of creatures, so, even the eternal well-being would not be possible otherwise and beyond the created being, and least of all, by the theanthropic personality of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #146 on: July 21, 2013, 08:19:51 AM »

Attempting to presents the orthodoxy attractively and in a marketing manner as philosophically actual and culturally avant-garde system of thought, this widely affirmed theologian in his delusion exceeds even the existentialists, bringing himself to an unprecedented height of hermeneutic deception, shaped into the postulates of hyper-essential nature of God, as phenomenological excerpt, metaphorical complex and allegorical synonym of the hypostatic existence.
Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #147 on: July 21, 2013, 02:12:44 PM »

It is a great condescension and unjustifiable charity in favor of his theological standpoint, that to be qualified only as an imposed otherness and difference instead of grace, because in Trinitarian terms, it postulates personality instead of the very divinity and hyper-essential being of God.
Logged
krotok
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: bulgarian
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #148 on: July 21, 2013, 04:00:28 PM »

The need for such freedom in love is actually requiring proof for faith and conditioning of a hope with miracles, and therefor, instead of Christianity and personality, it contributes us to a depersonalization and disfiguration due to the pride, hypocrisy and ruthlessness of ancient (or contemporary) Hellenes and Jews.

A complete article can be found at the following link of my blog:
http://krotok.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/on-the-subject-of-personality/
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #149 on: July 21, 2013, 07:34:03 PM »

I don't really get a lot of what you write, but I do enjoy it, the stuff I can sort of comprehend. Please don't stop!
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.393 seconds with 176 queries.