OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 21, 2014, 02:34:37 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 3650 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
« 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
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« 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
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,094


« 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: 2,374



« 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
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« 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: 2,374



« 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
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,094


« 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
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« 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
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,094


« 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
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« 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
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« 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
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,094


« 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
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,094


« 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
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« 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
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« 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
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,094


« 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
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,094


« 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
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,094


« 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
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,094


« 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
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,094


« 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
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,094


« 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
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,856



« 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

"No man gives the same exegesis twice: for he is not the same man, and it is not the same text." - St. Heraclitus
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: 2,374



« 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: 2,374



« 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.
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 0.15 seconds with 72 queries.