OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 30, 2014, 11:39:33 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 5 6 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Annihilationism and disbelief in immaterial souls  (Read 9699 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Didyma
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 242


Apostle of Awkwardness


« on: September 07, 2013, 05:09:29 PM »

My sister wants to know if it is acceptable for Orthodox to believe in the annihilationist view of Hell, and to disbelieve in the existence of immaterial souls for humans.  I told her that I am almost certain that it isn't, but she wants to be sure.  She said that she heard that Richard Swinburne is an EO annihilationist.  I don't know who that is or if it's true.

FYI:  Annihilationists believe that the damned do not go to any sort of Hell when they die, but are instead destroyed.  I think what my sister's view is basically this: the materialistic souls of humans need the intervention of God to continue to exist (or become immaterial) after death.  Since the damned ultimately do not want God or God's help, God does not make their souls immaterial and thus immortal, effectively allowing them to be destroyed. 
Logged

.- -. -.. / --. --- -.. / ... .... .- .-.. .-.. / .-- .. .--. . / .- .-- .- -.-- / .- .-.. .-.. / - . .- .-. ... / ..-. .-. --- -- / - .... . .. .-. / . -.-- . ...
Didyma
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 242


Apostle of Awkwardness


« Reply #1 on: September 07, 2013, 05:21:04 PM »

Correction: she believes that the damned souls will be destroyed after the final resurrection.
Logged

.- -. -.. / --. --- -.. / ... .... .- .-.. .-.. / .-- .. .--. . / .- .-- .- -.-- / .- .-.. .-.. / - . .- .-. ... / ..-. .-. --- -- / - .... . .. .-. / . -.-- . ...
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2013, 06:09:14 PM »

Annihilationism s not the teaching of the Church, nor is it the teaching of the Church that the soul is mateiral, i.e. part of the body.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #3 on: September 07, 2013, 06:15:28 PM »

I think what my sister's view is basically this: the materialistic souls of humans need the intervention of God to continue to exist (or become immaterial) after death. 

Yes.

Quote
Since the damned ultimately do not want God or God's help, God does not make their souls immaterial and thus immortal, effectively allowing them to be destroyed. 

We believe they continue to exist by the very grace that they reject.

A side note, we believe in the resurrection of the body, for everyone, regardless of where they stand before God.

John 5:28-19
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Mark 9:44
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,194



« Reply #4 on: September 07, 2013, 08:11:01 PM »

I have heard people claim that there is patristic support for Annihilationism, but I have never actually see anyone come up with any convincing evidence to back that up (although to be fair, I have not really spent a substantial amount of time researching it).  It seems to have become much more of a phenomenon with the Seventh Day Adventist movement.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2013, 08:12:05 PM by TheTrisagion » Logged

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

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Christ
Posts: 63


« Reply #5 on: September 08, 2013, 04:56:34 AM »

I have read the gospels, the epistles, the Revelation of John and what I have gathered is that after Christ's resurrection it clearly conveys that Christ is sitting on the right hand of power as the almighty judge.

That being the case, then what happened after Christ's resurrection?

Saint Paul tells us that Christ started the long awaited reurrection of the dead after been raised to glory. Peter's epistle also talks about the many captives that he led up into heaven as the resurrected white angelic cloud. Matthew tells us that he opened the tombs of the Old Covenant Saints.

But what emphasis all these points is the Revelation of John that points to a heavenly measured court as opposed to the unmeasured outer court of the unbelieving Gentiles. It is also interesting that the two symbolic witnesses represents the witnessing empowerment of the apostolic church to the world at large in a race against time to preach the gospel and call many to Christ.

I have always been interested in why at the altar there are two candles on either side. Then by reading the gospel accounts I have come to the understanding that what happened on the mount of transfiguration was a display of these two candles who were Moses and Elijah representing the Law and the Prophets. Jesus would tell his disciples to tell no man until the transfer of the Holy Ghost anointing by his Holy Ghost breath would commission the 1st century Apostolic church as the two symbolic witnesses of John's revelation to preach the gospel to the unmeasured outer court through the 42 symbolic months. 42 symbolising what the Apostolic Church goes through where 40 represents tribulation and 2 represents their witnessing power. That explains why Jesus sent them of in twos in each town to the jews first to preach the gospel.

Having said that the heavenly measured court must therefore be all the resurrected saints since when the Christ opened the tombs and annulled death on the cross at Calvary. If Revelation of John says that there is both a heavenly measured inner court and an unmeasured outer court then that confirms the already established heavenly kingdom New Jerusalem and that the resurrection of the dead had been commenced by Christ during the time the two symbolic witnesses would be first commissioned in the great commission and  continue witnessesing until the end of harvest.

I gathered if the kingdom exists and Christ is already sitting on the throne of David as judge then judgement had already commenced when he ascended up on high to sit on the right hand of power as the almighty judge in separating the sheep from the goats. Saint Paul does say that all men are destined to die once then immediately face judgement.

So if the Kingdom exists and the resurrection of the dead has started and judgement for all departed has been an ongoing process for every departed individual, then that would explain the 1000 years better in context.

If we have a look at A MILLENIUNISM  we see the letter A implies AN INDEFINITE ARTICLE. I don't hold to any eschatological views whether futurists, preterists, idealists or historicist but what I want to convey is that for the heavenly measured inner court that now appears to be all those who have departed and had taken part in the first resurrection are reigning A 1000 years notice the indefinite article A because there is no time restriction in the established heavenly reign because it is eternal and timeless, where as the unmeasured outer court seems to be placed under a time constraint as to say a race against time to preach the gospel before the end of harvest. Therefore we see a definite article THE 1000 years where a time constraint is placed upon the two witnesses to finish their testimony before they are killed by the beast of the bottomless Pitt who is Satan.

Correct me if I'm wrong because I need all your inputs to discuss these findings.




Logged
Nikolaos Greek
Last among equals
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Greece
Posts: 203



« Reply #6 on: September 08, 2013, 05:11:12 AM »

Neither is true. Well proofs?
After the Second udgement the rejectors will be put into fire that they choose, they choose to be there forever. It is written in the Bible.
Souls are not material. If it was so they would not be able to pass from material. The Saints and Christ do so.
Logged

God is Love.
Ό Θεός ἀγάπη ἐστί.
There is no luck, there is no fate. There are always two ways. One is God's and one is devil's. And in each step of your life you have to pick one, always.
Serpentslayer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Christ
Posts: 63


« Reply #7 on: September 08, 2013, 06:29:37 PM »

Neither is true. Well proofs?
After the Second udgement the rejectors will be put into fire that they choose, they choose to be there forever. It is written in the Bible.
Souls are not material. If it was so they would not be able to pass from material. The Saints and Christ do so.

Could you please be clear and succinct and state what isn't true?

1) Heavenly Kingdom of Christ has been established.  Yes/No?

2) Christ is sitting on the throne of David. yes/No?

3) Christ has been judging the nations from when he ascend up on high to sit on the right hand of power as God Almighty. yes/No?

4) The resurrection of the dead was started by Christ after his resurrection and is tied to his resurrection. yes/No?

5) The measured inner heavenly court is already residing with Christ as heavenly judges in the heavenly country New Jerusalem. Yes/No?

You said second judgment. What is second judgement in context to Christ's resurrection? What do you mean by second judgement and in what context?

Who are they that choose to be there and where is it written in the Bible?

This statement you made is really is disconcerting to say the least:

Quote
Souls are not material. If it was so they would not be able to pass from material. The Saints and Christ do so.

Are you saying that Christ along with the Saints are immaterial souls?
« Last Edit: September 08, 2013, 06:30:47 PM by Serpentslayer » Logged
Didyma
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 242


Apostle of Awkwardness


« Reply #8 on: September 08, 2013, 07:03:57 PM »

Neither is true. Well proofs?
After the Second udgement the rejectors will be put into fire that they choose, they choose to be there forever. It is written in the Bible.
Souls are not material. If it was so they would not be able to pass from material. The Saints and Christ do so.

Could you please be clear and succinct and state what isn't true?

1) Heavenly Kingdom of Christ has been established.  Yes/No?

2) Christ is sitting on the throne of David. yes/No?

3) Christ has been judging the nations from when he ascend up on high to sit on the right hand of power as God Almighty. yes/No?

4) The resurrection of the dead was started by Christ after his resurrection and is tied to his resurrection. yes/No?

5) The measured inner heavenly court is already residing with Christ as heavenly judges in the heavenly country New Jerusalem. Yes/No?

You said second judgment. What is second judgement in context to Christ's resurrection? What do you mean by second judgement and in what context?

Who are they that choose to be there and where is it written in the Bible?

This statement you made is really is disconcerting to say the least:

Quote
Souls are not material. If it was so they would not be able to pass from material. The Saints and Christ do so.

Are you saying that Christ along with the Saints are immaterial souls?

I believe Nikolaos Greek was referring to my OP.
Logged

.- -. -.. / --. --- -.. / ... .... .- .-.. .-.. / .-- .. .--. . / .- .-- .- -.-- / .- .-.. .-.. / - . .- .-. ... / ..-. .-. --- -- / - .... . .. .-. / . -.-- . ...
Didyma
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 242


Apostle of Awkwardness


« Reply #9 on: September 08, 2013, 07:09:21 PM »

In reference to your other posts, that's what I thought.  Except for one of Melodist's comments:

I think what my sister's view is basically this: the materialistic souls of humans need the intervention of God to continue to exist (or become immaterial) after death.

Yes.


The Orthodox believe that souls are material?
Logged

.- -. -.. / --. --- -.. / ... .... .- .-.. .-.. / .-- .. .--. . / .- .-- .- -.-- / .- .-.. .-.. / - . .- .-. ... / ..-. .-. --- -- / - .... . .. .-. / . -.-- . ...
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,366


« Reply #10 on: September 08, 2013, 07:20:15 PM »

Clearly souls are material in that they are created; if they were truly immaterial (like God) then they would be uncreated and eternal; as it stands they do need the grace of God to help them continue existing. Of course in normal discussion people speak of souls as immaterial, as a sort of dumbing-down or simplification of theology so as not to confuse the masses; and in most cases this is an accurate enough way of speaking. Anyway, regardless, the Church has never taught annihilationism, so far as I can tell.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2013, 07:20:57 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

There are many foolish priests out there.
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #11 on: September 08, 2013, 07:46:52 PM »

The Orthodox believe that souls are material?

Without getting into that,  my point was that everything requires God's grace to exist, including our souls, whether or not they are united with our physical bodies. Therefore, if our souls continue to exist beyond physical death to this world, then it is only by being sustained in existence by God.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Serpentslayer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Christ
Posts: 63


« Reply #12 on: September 08, 2013, 08:39:17 PM »

Clearly souls are material in that they are created; if they were truly immaterial (like God) then they would be uncreated and eternal; as it stands they do need the grace of God to help them continue existing. Of course in normal discussion people speak of souls as immaterial, as a sort of dumbing-down or simplification of theology so as not to confuse the masses; and in most cases this is an accurate enough way of speaking. Anyway, regardless, the Church has never taught annihilationism, so far as I can tell.

What do you mean a soul is material. In terms of the definition material it is formed by atoms, molecules and sub molecular particles that articulate certain processes and functions. The materialistic worldly realm we live in is deterministic by nature and is by definition separate from the living consciousness that is the mind of each individual who is unique and separate from the mind and consciousness of his peers.

Therefore a soul is an immaterial unknown in quantity and mass that is NOT deterministic by natural processes and functions.

The soul identifies who we are at a conscious level minus our earthly experiences. It simply is a immaterial conscious state of being aware and the ability to reflect and discern love, charity, jealousy and other causal effects that the soul manifests in the earthly realm through its experiences.

Having said all that my question is that the soul WITHOUT the resurrection body is a state of nakedness according to Saint Paul's testimony and that is why he emphatically declared that we are given The Holy Spirit in earnest so that we are not left naked WITHOUT a resurrection body after we die, but rather be clothed with immortality. The word clothed is in context to a heavenly body of an angel.

Since God the Holy Spirit indwells the justified in Christ believer, therefore it is he who sees the question of salvation through from sanctification right up to resurrection as he is THE RESURRECTION. So that those who are sealed are sealed not by Christ's earthly coming when the world has ended (End of Harvest) but Christ's appearing which is when the thief (death) comes in a day and hour that no man knows when he ends up destroying (killing) your earthly house (body). That is why Saint Paul states there is already (present tense participle) a heavenly house awaiting us to be clothed with ONCE our earthly house is DISOLVED, meaning it dies. That is why Saint Paul would say to his immediate audience that there is the crown of righteousness already laid up for me after I die but not only me, but also those who love Christ at his APPEARING (present tense participle). This APPEARING is in context to when Saint Paul was to be offered as a drink offering meaning that he was going to be martyred.

So it is clear that a Christian who is sealed for the resurrection by God the Holy Spirit will in fact be resurrected by the Holy Spirit who also raised up Jesus (Romans 8:11). Therefore judgement as it stands is immediately after a Christian believer dies and not after the End of Harvest. For it is written those that don't have part in the first resurrection stay dead as disembodied souls in outer darkness (conscious state of awareness) until the end of harvest when Christ puts them out of their misery by the second death, the death of the soul in the lake of fire.

So for a sancitified christian by the hand of God the Holy Spirit there is no second judgement but rather only the first to be rewarded for the things done in the Adam One body, whilst the wicked will face both the first and second judgements and as it is written they will die twice, first their material body will perish, then their immaterial body their soul will also perish, in the lake of fire at the end of harvest. That is why it is written blessed are those who have part in the first resurrection for the second death, the death of the soul is to no effect (has no power over them) and there and then is the confirmation that there is no second judgement for a sanctified believer in Christ.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2013, 08:48:24 PM by Serpentslayer » Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,366


« Reply #13 on: September 08, 2013, 09:08:21 PM »

What do you mean a soul is material.

See here for something to start with. I am currently working on a more precise working out of it, though I don't expect to have made much progress any time soon.
Logged

There are many foolish priests out there.
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #14 on: September 08, 2013, 09:48:38 PM »

I'm pretty sure Christ's words concerning when all will be called from the grave and St Paul's words concerning the dead in Christ rising first point to the general resurrection and final judgment at the second coming.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Serpentslayer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Christ
Posts: 63


« Reply #15 on: September 08, 2013, 09:55:38 PM »

What do you mean a soul is material.

See here for something to start with. I am currently working on a more precise working out of it, though I don't expect to have made much progress any time soon.

God likes a straight answer, either a Yes/No?

According to the definition of material below:

Quote
ma·te·ri·al 
/məˈti(ə)rēəl/
Noun
The matter from which a thing is or can be made.
Adjective
Denoting or consisting of physical objects rather than the mind or spirit.
Synonyms
noun.     matter - fabric - substance - cloth
adjective.     physical - corporeal - substantial - bodily

Note: Material is not a mind that relates to the living consciousness and is not a spirit which is the essence of life itself.

Material must be quantified and qualified, fro example:

Quote
Luke 24:39
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

So please answer the question directly according to the proper definition without redefining according to your own definition or definition of others!

Do you consider a soul material or immaterial? Yes/No!
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,366


« Reply #16 on: September 08, 2013, 09:57:48 PM »

The answer is obvious.
Logged

There are many foolish priests out there.
Serpentslayer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Christ
Posts: 63


« Reply #17 on: September 08, 2013, 10:16:21 PM »

I'm pretty sure Christ's words concerning when all will be called from the grave and St Paul's words concerning the dead in Christ rising first point to the general resurrection and final judgment at the second coming.

Appear-ING as far as Saint Paul was concerned was in context to when his earthly body would immediately be dissolved upon his martyrdom and hence that is why he uses ING, by signifying a present tense particle of the verb to be.

This appear-ING is all throughout the epistles where even John uses the immediate verb to be in

Quote
1 John 2:18
Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

Now to John and his immediate audience it is a verb in the immediate present tense when the antichrists were on their heals and martyrdom seemed only an hour away.

John uses these clichés to identify with his immediate audience the 1st century Apostolic Church that they are soon to face persecution onto death. This is the context of the thief who destroys the earthly house and also is coherent to Saint Paul's testimony when he says to his immediate audience that after our bodies are dissolved, in the twinkling of an eye we will put on immortality, because we who are given the Spirit in earnest will not be found naked and will be clothed with the resurrection spirit body like our lord, that is a heavenly angelic body.

Again there is no final judgement for a sanctified by God the Holy Spirit faithful in Christ, by saying this you deny the PRESENT power of Christ's Holy Spirit who is the RESURRECTION. Also by implying that God the Holy Spirit doesn't complete the question of salvation in every sanctified believer that he single handedly sanctifies after they die and that the believer is left as a disembodied immaterial soul (living consciousness) without a resurrection garment until Christ comes the second time, some 2000 years in the making to finish what his Holy Spirit has not, is the complete opposite to what scripture teaches.

The theology of a second coming resurrection denies the present power of God the Holy Spirit as the RESURRECTION in the same way Martha denied the present power of Christ who stated that he is the RESURRECTION. The reason Jesus wept was because of the people's unbelief, that right there and then the power of God was to be manifest, yet they were looking to the past and the future but not the present.

It was the same spirit of unbelief that Gideon projected, when he questioned God after God told him that he will make him into a man of valour. Gideon too denied the present power of God to achieve this right there and then.

Take for example the Samaritan women at the well, she too would not look at Christ in the present and thereby deny the power of God that was present in Christ right there and then by replying to Christ that when the messiah comes he will teach us everything. Christ replied back saying I AM he! Notice he said I AM and not I WAS or I WILL BE!

As far as the second coming doctrine is concerned this is in reference to the seventh trumpet of God being sounded by the Christ when he comes as the brilliant angelic light with his already resurrected white angelic cloud, who are the resurrected saints throughout the great harvest from when the Christ opened the tombs right up the last to be invited as the wedding guests to the wedding of the lamb of God at the end of the world (End of Harvest).

This final coming of Christ is in context to a new heaven and a new earth, when he declares time no longer the earthly realm as we know it is dissolved forever and the eternal timeless heavenly realm New Jerusalem comes into full view as the only ark of safety for all the resurrected saints throughout the period of grace that encompassed the first and only resurrection.

As far as the end judgement for the remaining dead that were cast into outer darkness as disembodied souls is concerned, these are they that had no part in the resurrection of the dead, they are literally awaiting their execution in the lake of fire, which is the second death, the death of the soul.

So for the sanctified by God the Holy Spirit Bourne Again Christians there is no death or nakedness for our souls as we are pardoned from the final judgement, to immediately migrate directly from life in the earthly tent to life with Christ in the heavenly tent.

« Last Edit: September 08, 2013, 10:33:57 PM by Serpentslayer » Logged
Didyma
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 242


Apostle of Awkwardness


« Reply #18 on: September 09, 2013, 08:47:28 AM »

Who's the Orthodox guy that my sister heard was annihilationist?  Does anyone know?  I'll try to get her to elaborate her views a little more so that you can be more clear as to what exactly the Church doesn't affirm.
Logged

.- -. -.. / --. --- -.. / ... .... .- .-.. .-.. / .-- .. .--. . / .- .-- .- -.-- / .- .-.. .-.. / - . .- .-. ... / ..-. .-. --- -- / - .... . .. .-. / . -.-- . ...
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #19 on: September 09, 2013, 09:22:30 AM »

I don't know much at all about Swinburne. It appears he spent his last years as an Orthodox Christian, but his apologetic/ theological work has very little influence in the Orthodox world. He seems to get more attention among certain sectors of Christian academia in the West.

Annihilationism is definitely not taught by the Orthodox Church.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #20 on: September 09, 2013, 07:58:03 PM »

his earthly body would immediately be dissolved upon his martyrdom

Where is this recorded as historically happening?

Quote
after our bodies are dissolved, in the twinkling of an eye we will put on immortality, because we who are given the Spirit in earnest will not be found naked and will be clothed with the resurrection spirit body like our lord, that is a heavenly angelic body.

This happens at the second coming.

Quote
Again there is no final judgement for a sanctified by God the Holy Spirit faithful in Christ,

Everyone faces the final judgment, not all are condemned.

Quote
by saying this you deny the PRESENT power of Christ's Holy Spirit who is the RESURRECTION.

Believing in the general resurrection at the second coming doesn't deny the power of God to raise the dead, but rather affirms it.

Quote
Also by implying that God the Holy Spirit doesn't complete the question of salvation in every sanctified believer that he single handedly sanctifies after they die and that the believer is left as a disembodied immaterial soul (living consciousness) without a resurrection garment until Christ comes the second time, some 2000 years in the making to finish what his Holy Spirit has not, is the complete opposite to what scripture teaches.

And the dead in Christ shall rise first...

Quote
The theology of a second coming resurrection denies the present power of God the Holy Spirit as the RESURRECTION in the same way Martha denied the present power of Christ who stated that he is the RESURRECTION.

No it doesn't.

Quote
The reason Jesus wept was because of the people's unbelief, that right there and then the power of God was to be manifest, yet they were looking to the past and the future but not the present.

Why doth the Evangelist carefully in several places mention that “He wept,” and that, “He groaned”? That thou mayest learn that He had of a truth put on our nature. For when this Evangelist is remarkable for uttering great things concerning Christ more than the others, in matters relating to the body, here he also speaketh much more humbly than they. For instance, concerning His death he hath said nothing of the kind; the other Evangelists declare that He was exceedingly sorrowful, that He was in an agony; but John, on the contrary, saith, that He even cast the officers backwards. So that he hath made up here what is omitted there, by mentioning His grief. When speaking of His death, Christ saith, “I have power to lay down My life” ( c. x. 18 ), and then He uttereth no lowly word; therefore at the Passion they attribute to Him much that is human, to show the reality of the Dispensation. And Matthew proves this by the Agony, the trouble, the trembling, and the sweat; but John by His sorrow. For had He not been of our nature, He would not once and again have been mastered by grief. What did Jesus? He made no defense with regard to their charges; for why should He silence by words those who were soon to be silenced by deeds? a means less annoying, and more adapted to shame them.

Quote
It was the same spirit of unbelief that Gideon projected, when he questioned God after God told him that he will make him into a man of valour. Gideon too denied the present power of God to achieve this right there and then.

I don't deny that God has the power to do anything, only that He will exercise that power in a manner consistent with how He has revealed that He will. In fact, I celebrate that he has the power to do it in the present age every year on August 15th, and celebrate it as a sign of what awaits all who die in Christ.

Quote
Take for example the Samaritan women at the well, she too would not look at Christ in the present and thereby deny the power of God that was present in Christ right there and then by replying to Christ that when the messiah comes he will teach us everything. Christ replied back saying I AM he! Notice he said I AM and not I WAS or I WILL BE!

Your bolded words remind me of one of the hymns in Revelation. He said that He is who He is, not that He is there to presently teach her everything, even though He did promise His disciples that the Holy Spirit wold teach them all things on the day of Pentecost (speaking in the future tense of when He said those words.

Quote
This final coming of Christ is in context to a new heaven and a new earth, when he declares time no longer the earthly realm as we know it is dissolved forever and the eternal timeless heavenly realm New Jerusalem comes into full view as the only ark of safety for all the resurrected saints throughout the period of grace that encompassed the first and only resurrection.

This is why it is appointed for the resurrection to happen at this time.

Quote
As far as the end judgement for the remaining dead that were cast into outer darkness as disembodied souls is concerned, these are they that had no part in the resurrection of the dead, they are literally awaiting their execution in the lake of fire, which is the second death, the death of the soul.

And what about receiving in the body the things done in the body?

Quote
So for the sanctified by God the Holy Spirit Bourne Again Christians there is no death or nakedness for our souls as we are pardoned from the final judgement, to immediately migrate directly from life in the earthly tent to life with Christ in the heavenly tent.

To say that those who stand at Christ's right hand at the final judgment won't be at the final judgement is to deny the nature of the final judgement everywhere that it is mentioned.

I find it odd that you reject the resurrection of the body after quoting where Jesus invites the Apostles to physically touch His body.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2013, 07:58:24 PM by Melodist » Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,194



« Reply #21 on: September 09, 2013, 08:03:19 PM »

Quote
So for the sanctified by God the Holy Spirit Bourne Again Christians there is no death or nakedness for our souls as we are pardoned from the final judgement, to immediately migrate directly from life in the earthly tent to life with Christ in the heavenly tent.

Is this like Jason Bourne who can jump out of helicopters and wipe out dozens of people with one magazine clip?  'Cause I would really like to meet some Christians like that.  I bet they are rock stars at evangelizing.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15,500


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 09, 2013, 08:45:16 PM »

Quote
So for the sanctified by God the Holy Spirit Bourne Again Christians there is no death or nakedness for our souls as we are pardoned from the final judgement, to immediately migrate directly from life in the earthly tent to life with Christ in the heavenly tent.

Is this like Jason Bourne who can jump out of helicopters and wipe out dozens of people with one magazine clip?  'Cause I would really like to meet some Christians like that.  I bet they are rock stars at evangelizing.

You have no idea how much effort it took for me not to post something Jason Bournesque the first time I read the post you quoted. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Serpentslayer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Christ
Posts: 63


« Reply #23 on: September 09, 2013, 08:58:45 PM »

I don't hold to any man made doctrine concerning eschatology such as futurists, preterists, historicists or idealists.

I am however confused what annihilationism means in terms of judgement (both first and second), the resurrection of the dead, the heavenly Kingdom of Christ, the identity of Christ and the FINAL coming of Christ.

Can anyone shed some light to why Christians are defining themselves by these human terms?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism

Quote
Annihilationism (from Latin annihilō) is a Christian belief that apart from salvation the final punishment of human beings results in their total destruction (annihilation) rather than their everlasting torment. It is directly related to the doctrine of conditional immortality, the idea that a human soul is not immortal unless it is given eternal life.

If Annihilation is the question of the state of the soul after the person dies, corresponding to the first death, that is the death of the earthly body, then scripture is clear about the soul as being an immaterial conscious state, where it is either clothed with the heavenly body like our Lord's or it is sent into a state of conscious outer darkness away from the light of The Lord.

However without looking at any scholastic definition we are told in scripture that there are two judgements. The first is when we are all destined to die once, then immediately following is the FIRST JUDGEMENT. The other is the SECOND and FINAL JUDGEMENT at the end of the great harvest when Christ sounds the seventh trumpet and declares time no longer.

If we contextualise what scripture is teaching, we can understand that the first judgement pertains to when the earthly house is dissolved and we come face to face with Christ to be judged by him for the works done in the body, for that is what is being clearly conveyed by the gospel and epistle accounts that when we die, we are immediately to face the first judgement.

This first judgement becomes the white throne judgement of Christ who sits on the right hand of power as God almighty and judges the nations from when he ascended up on high into New Jerusalem to when he comes for the final time to declare the end of all Adam One life including the earthly realm (first heaven and fist earth have passed away). It is clear that the first judgement is in context to what the epistles teach as the Lord's appear-ING. The word APPEARING is the present tense participle of the verb APPEAR to be.

Quote
2 Timothy 4:8
Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

Now having said that we look towards scripture to how God sees these two judgements:

As The Lord clearly conveyed that there are two judgements, one for the body which is the first death and one for the soul, which is the second death.

Quote
Matthew 10:28
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

So we know the term hell is used to imply two deaths for both the material Adam One body and the immaterial soul.

It becomes clear and succinct that first resurrection is tied to the FIRST JUDGEMENT after our earthly bodies are dissolved. Notice the second death that is awaiting those who have no part in the resurrection of the dead after the first judgement. These disembodied immaterial conscious souls are said to be in a state of conscious darkness, a hell as a state of being.

Notice most importantly that the thousand years separate the first and the second deaths correlating to the first and second judgements. It is very easy to see. Once you discern scriptural facts then you can understand in context to the 1000 years that first judgement of the separating of the sheep and goats has been happening for the last almost 2000 years when people die to face the first judgement at the present tense participle verb to be in the LORD's APPEARING. Both the good and the wicked will face the first judgement, in a day and hour unbeknown to them, to either be clothed with the heavenly spirit bodies like our Lord's (first resurrection) or are sent into outer darkness of hell awaiting final execution in the lake of fire.

The versus in Matthew 24:26:51 are a prelude to the day and hour that no man knows when we are destined to die, when our earthly body is dissolved, then to face the first judgement at the Lord's APPEARING.

Quote
Revelation 20:6
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Notice the verse below describe those wicked after the first judgement, after their earthly body was dissolved who were not chosen as sheep were sent of as goats who were waiting in hell (immaterial conscious state of being) until their day of execution where the context of the second death is to put a permanent end to the disembodied soul.

Notice also that death was also swallowed up by the lake of fire because after this second judgement, there is no more Adam One life remaining as all those who were chosen to be invited as guests to the wedding of the lamb of God at the end of the great harvest, are already present through the first resurrection (resurrection of the dead) that encompassed the 1000 symbolic years from when the Christ opened the tombs of the Old Covenant Saints and took them into New Jerusalem as the heavenly inner measured court of the redeemed from the world. (Revelation 11:1-3)

The thousand years therefore becomes across the age of grace from when the Apostolic Church was commissioned to preach the gospel as the two symbolic witnesses of John's Revelation wearing the priestly SACKCLOTH FROM TOP TO BOTTOM as written in Revelation 11:3.

Quote
Revelation 20:14-15
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,366


« Reply #24 on: September 09, 2013, 09:03:44 PM »

This thread takes me back to when I used to argue with Protestants in chat rooms. Except I don't remember being this disgusted. Maybe I'm getting more curmudgeonly in my old age.
Logged

There are many foolish priests out there.
Serpentslayer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Christ
Posts: 63


« Reply #25 on: September 09, 2013, 09:12:48 PM »

The word BOURNE is to be carried or transported by. The word BORNE AGAIN is the Adjective of BORN by the reason that justified by the blood of Christ faithful are CARRIED BY God the Holy Spirit in their essential walk by faith with the Holy Heavenly Father.


Quote
borne 
/bôrn/
Adjective
Carried or transported by: "waterborne bacteria"; "insect-borne pollen".
Synonyms
born
Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #26 on: September 09, 2013, 09:39:52 PM »

I don't hold to any man made doctrine
Unlike on a certain other forum I believe you frequent, this sort of rhetoric doesn't do you much good here.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Serpentslayer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Christ
Posts: 63


« Reply #27 on: September 09, 2013, 09:51:41 PM »

Many prophesy to be Christians but they are far from Christ. Jesus taught us that you will know them by their works, in discerning whether they are wielded by God the Holy Spirit or they are wielded by spiritual forces of darkness in high places.

We look at the beatitudes of Christ to discern the real Christians from the fraudsters who say Lord, Lord and Lord but inside they are not his sheep but ravenous wolves who are amidst the sheep, dressed up as the grandmother in the little red riding hood novel.


THE EIGHT BEATITUDES OF JESUS


"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.


First and for most is the first step to the stair way to Christ's heaven, is to recognise that you are a filthy rotten sinner in need of grace. You need to be a broken and contrite heart and regard yourself as a person who is absolutely broke and has nothing to offer to Christ. This is what is meant by the POOR IN SPIRIT. Many Christians from the way they speak these days, don't even appear to be on the first sequential ladder rung to the stair way to Christ's heaven. They are full of malice and putrid hatred.

Rather than having this spiritual attitude:

Nothing in my hand I bring, Simply to the cross I cling

They conspire to bring division to the body of Christ by persecuting the true Christians and followers of Christ.

Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.


Before one can mourn spiritual they must have already stepped on the first sequential rung on the ladder in recognising how poor and miserable they really are without Christ. So these true Christians are mourning their broken, poor and contrite spirit amongst all the worldly evil that surrounds them.

Blessed are the meek,
for they shall inherit the earth.


Once your have stepped on the first and second sequential rung by recognising your poor state of spirit as a rotten sinner, then you mourned for your state of being, then you become meek in the way you treat others by the way Christ treated others and not according to the way the world treats others.

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they shall be satisfied.


The fourth rung in sequence will bring you into God's light by always knocking and asking God to give you spiritual drink and feed you the heavenly bread that is his Holy Word through the sequence of first recognising your spiritual impoverished state, mourning for your state of being, showing meekness as God showed meekness to others.

Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.


Once you step on the fifth rung of the sequential ladder you then realise how much merciful God has been to you and you like Christ show mercy to theirs by obeying Christ's instruction to forgive and care for your enemies. This fifth ladder rung cannot be achieved unless the person follows through the first sequential four.

Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.


I like this one, you see once you have asked for Christ's righteousness and mercy to be manifest through you, you then become circumcised in the heart and become a pure bride for Christ. It is at this point that you can come into the presence of God. This is the sixth sequential ladder rung to the stair way to Christ's heaven.

Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called children of God.


Once you have being purified in the heart by God, you then can follow in the steps of the Prince of Peace Christ Jesus to be true witnesses for his cause.  

Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."


Lastly we see here the eight sequential ladder rung to Christ's stair way to heaven by understanding the IF THEN CONDITION that must happen to satisfy the IF clause.

You must be persecuted by the world whether they are secular or Christian for this is the necessary result of having come to the eighth rung, because now you are well and truly in Satan's radar and he will send enemy after enemy after you, to persecute and to kill you spiritual or physically in order to silence you. He doesn't fear you, he fears the Christ in you:

Quote
1 John 4:4
You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

Therefore persecution is inevitable by the hands of the captive vessels who are wielded by the spiritual powers of darkness in high places.

The IF THEN becomes clearly seen in every Christian believer as the countless enemies who are sent by satan to silence them is evident, because the wicked in high places know that the truth of Christ is in you.

Saint Paul tells Timothy the IF THEN conditional statement that applies to the true church and that is:

IF YOU SUFFER PERSECUTION FOR CHRIST'S RIGHTEOUSNESS
         THEN YOU ARE LIVING GODLY IN CHRIST JESUS

Quote
2 Timothy 3:12
Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.


Where are many prophesying Christians on the sequential LADDER RUNG according to Christ's beatitudes?


Gospel of St. Matthew 5:3-10
Logged
Serpentslayer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Christ
Posts: 63


« Reply #28 on: September 09, 2013, 10:01:37 PM »

This thread takes me back to when I used to argue with Protestants in chat rooms. Except I don't remember being this disgusted. Maybe I'm getting more curmudgeonly in my old age.

Do you have the right to be disgusted! Really do you!

Are you in a position to be disgusted?

Come on spit it out, what are you disgusted about, me or Christ?

I live not for myself but Christ. So if you have an issue internally speak it out or forever hold your peace!

Don't say you are disgusted by not mentioning why or to whom you are saying it to and just walk away. You have committed a cowardly act!
« Last Edit: September 09, 2013, 10:06:04 PM by Serpentslayer » Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,366


« Reply #29 on: September 09, 2013, 10:15:51 PM »

You have committed a cowardly act!

 Cheesy I like your style.
Logged

There are many foolish priests out there.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #30 on: September 09, 2013, 10:53:24 PM »

This thread takes me back to when I used to argue with Protestants in chat rooms. Except I don't remember being this disgusted. Maybe I'm getting more curmudgeonly in my old age.

+1
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #31 on: September 09, 2013, 10:54:27 PM »

This thread takes me back to when I used to argue with Protestants in chat rooms. Except I don't remember being this disgusted. Maybe I'm getting more curmudgeonly in my old age.

Do you have the right to be disgusted! Really do you!

Are you in a position to be disgusted?

Come on spit it out, what are you disgusted about, me or Christ?

I live not for myself but Christ. So if you have an issue internally speak it out or forever hold your peace!

Don't say you are disgusted by not mentioning why or to whom you are saying it to and just walk away. You have committed a cowardly act!

Heresy is disgusting.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Serpentslayer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Christ
Posts: 63


« Reply #32 on: September 09, 2013, 10:59:40 PM »

I don't hold to any man made doctrine
Unlike on a certain other forum I believe you frequent, this sort of rhetoric doesn't do you much good here.

Can you speak and specify what sort of rhetoric you are implying to and to whom?

When you finally come around to explaining this rhetoric HuhHuh that you have mysteriously veiled in the secret place of your heart, because you failed to specify what this rhetoric is that you are implying. If you had specified it in a genuine and transparent manner, then the body of Christ can decide by their God given right to determine if it true or false and to whether it is edifying to the body of Christ.

You are not the judge in this matter to be a law giver,  a judge and an executioner, even though you make your self to be by the mannerism of this fallacious statement of yours.

This is the exact attitude that Christ rebuked, when he rebuked the self centred arrogant Pharisees. This attitude is that of a lawyer who states something in opposition to an individual without giving the reason to why, how, when and where, then walks away as if to imply that the verdict of guilt is already placed on that individual.

Is this what you have learnt from Christ as a Christian to condemn others in the fashion that you have served this fallacious and judgemental statement of yours.

God be my witness I forgive for your judgemental statement that you have made against me and thereby rebuke and correct you to abide in Christ and all his eight beatitudes.
Logged
Serpentslayer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Christ
Posts: 63


« Reply #33 on: September 09, 2013, 11:06:53 PM »

This thread takes me back to when I used to argue with Protestants in chat rooms. Except I don't remember being this disgusted. Maybe I'm getting more curmudgeonly in my old age.

Do you have the right to be disgusted! Really do you!

Are you in a position to be disgusted?

Come on spit it out, what are you disgusted about, me or Christ?

I live not for myself but Christ. So if you have an issue internally speak it out or forever hold your peace!

Don't say you are disgusted by not mentioning why or to whom you are saying it to and just walk away. You have committed a cowardly act!

Heresy is disgusting.

Who are you a rotten sinner like me and all men to accuse me of heresy?

Who are you to say that you are disgusted?

Are you your own or are you Christ's, because this attitude of yours is not in harmony with the beatitudes of Christ and is unbecoming of a Christian.

You, you amongst all men judge me?

Who do you think you are!

Your actions have been noted by the body of Christ to how you have wrongly judged and persecuted a member of the body of Christ.

I urge you to start on the first rung of the sequential ladder of Christ's beatitudes and recognise how spiritually impoverished you truly are as I once did and do today.

Your ability to lash out at a member of the body of Christ is unlawful according to the law of love (agape). You can't compete with the truth that The Lord has placed in me on a spiritual scriptural manner and so you revert to spiritual assassination by wanting me to be evicted from this forum.

What does that make you?

Personal attack removed by moderator  -PtA
« Last Edit: September 10, 2013, 01:35:06 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Serpentslayer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Christ
Posts: 63


« Reply #34 on: September 09, 2013, 11:09:44 PM »

Have a look at yourselves seriously you are attacking me like a pack of wolves, like a bunch of hyenas.

This is totally uncalled for!

May The Lord have mercy on your souls.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #35 on: September 09, 2013, 11:12:45 PM »

This thread takes me back to when I used to argue with Protestants in chat rooms. Except I don't remember being this disgusted. Maybe I'm getting more curmudgeonly in my old age.

Do you have the right to be disgusted! Really do you!

Are you in a position to be disgusted?

Come on spit it out, what are you disgusted about, me or Christ?

I live not for myself but Christ. So if you have an issue internally speak it out or forever hold your peace!

Don't say you are disgusted by not mentioning why or to whom you are saying it to and just walk away. You have committed a cowardly act!

Heresy is disgusting.

Who are you a rotten sinner like me and all men to accuse me of heresy?

Who are you to say that you are disgusted?

Are you your own or are you Christ's, because this attitude of yours is not in harmony with the beatitudes of Christ and is unbecoming of a Christian.

You, you amongst all men judge me?

Who do you think you are!

Your actions have been noted by the body of Christ to how you have wrongly judged and persecuted a member of the body of Christ.

I urge you to start on the first rung of the sequential ladder of Christ's beatitudes and recognise how spiritually impoverished you truly are as I once did and do today.

Your ability to lash out at a member of the body of Christ is unlawful according to the law of love (agape). You can't compete with the truth that The Lord has placed in me on a spiritual scriptural manner and so you revert to spiritual assassination by wanting me to be evicted from this forum.

What does that make you?

Personal attack removed by moderator  -MK

You aren't a member of the Body of Christ.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2013, 10:28:06 AM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15,500


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #36 on: September 10, 2013, 01:02:11 AM »

Have a look at yourselves seriously you are attacking me like a pack of wolves, like a bunch of hyenas.

This is totally uncalled for!

May The Lord have mercy on your souls.


The Christian F-bomb.  Well played. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,194



« Reply #37 on: September 10, 2013, 01:08:07 AM »

Tis a shame he won't be around long enough to have more fun with this.  I give him a week.

SerpentSlayer, if you come on to an ORTHODOX Christian forum, and spout all kinds of silliness and theories that are contrary to ORTHODOX Church teachings, you can kind of expect everyone to look at you a bit strangely.  If I went to your protestant forums and started posting akathists to the Theotokos, I'm sure I would receive a negative reaction as well.
Logged

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

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #38 on: September 10, 2013, 04:45:11 AM »

Tis a shame he won't be around long enough to have more fun with this.  I give him a week.

SerpentSlayer, if you come on to an ORTHODOX Christian forum, and spout all kinds of silliness and theories that are contrary to ORTHODOX Church teachings, you can kind of expect everyone to look at you a bit strangely.  If I went to your protestant forums and started posting akathists to the Theotokos, I'm sure I would receive a negative reaction as well.

I would hope that denial of basic Christian doctrines like the resurrection of (all) the dead and the universality of the final judgment would be just as much accepted by most Protestants as it is here.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,194



« Reply #39 on: September 10, 2013, 07:55:19 AM »

Tis a shame he won't be around long enough to have more fun with this.  I give him a week.

SerpentSlayer, if you come on to an ORTHODOX Christian forum, and spout all kinds of silliness and theories that are contrary to ORTHODOX Church teachings, you can kind of expect everyone to look at you a bit strangely.  If I went to your protestant forums and started posting akathists to the Theotokos, I'm sure I would receive a negative reaction as well.

I would hope that denial of basic Christian doctrines like the resurrection of (all) the dead and the universality of the final judgment would be just as much accepted by most Protestants as it is here.
I would hope that as well, but when you have 40k denominations, there is a good chance that there is a certain percentage who have come up with their own opinion on the matter.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,000


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #40 on: September 10, 2013, 09:37:21 AM »

Have a look at yourselves seriously you are attacking me like a pack of wolves, like a bunch of hyenas.

This is totally uncalled for!

May The Lord have mercy on your souls.



or



I am confused.  Baffled, even.
Logged

Didyma
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 242


Apostle of Awkwardness


« Reply #41 on: September 10, 2013, 10:16:00 AM »

I really want to post a reaction face to this thread, but whenever I try there's just one of those ? boxes.  I'll just have to go with typed ones for now.  Here you go:

...........................................________
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?......................................................\,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:”........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\
« Last Edit: September 10, 2013, 10:21:04 AM by Didyma » Logged

.- -. -.. / --. --- -.. / ... .... .- .-.. .-.. / .-- .. .--. . / .- .-- .- -.-- / .- .-.. .-.. / - . .- .-. ... / ..-. .-. --- -- / - .... . .. .-. / . -.-- . ...
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,194



« Reply #42 on: September 10, 2013, 10:23:25 AM »

I believe this one may properly express your thoughts on this thread.  Grin

Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 242


Apostle of Awkwardness


« Reply #43 on: September 10, 2013, 10:39:48 AM »

^Yep. That's about right.  It's too bad I can't tap into my vast arsenal of reaction faces.  TT__TT 

Anyway, I asked my sister to elaborate on her views so that we could respond more specifically.
Logged

.- -. -.. / --. --- -.. / ... .... .- .-.. .-.. / .-- .. .--. . / .- .-- .- -.-- / .- .-.. .-.. / - . .- .-. ... / ..-. .-. --- -- / - .... . .. .-. / . -.-- . ...
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #44 on: September 10, 2013, 07:10:50 PM »

Tis a shame he won't be around long enough to have more fun with this.  I give him a week.

SerpentSlayer, if you come on to an ORTHODOX Christian forum, and spout all kinds of silliness and theories that are contrary to ORTHODOX Church teachings, you can kind of expect everyone to look at you a bit strangely.  If I went to your protestant forums and started posting akathists to the Theotokos, I'm sure I would receive a negative reaction as well.

I would hope that denial of basic Christian doctrines like the resurrection of (all) the dead and the universality of the final judgment would be just as much accepted by most Protestants as it is here.
I would hope that as well, but when you have 40k denominations, there is a good chance that there is a certain percentage who have come up with their own opinion on the matter.

That's not counting all those denominations of one a la Alfred and Data Swami.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #45 on: September 10, 2013, 07:50:08 PM »

^Yep. That's about right.  It's too bad I can't tap into my vast arsenal of reaction faces.  TT__TT 

They are still around pushing their doctrines whilst calling members of the body of Christ heretics and not Christian. In the same spirit of the Roman Catholic Church who burnt alive and tortured the true Christians.

Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Didyma
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 242


Apostle of Awkwardness


« Reply #46 on: September 10, 2013, 08:45:34 PM »

^Yep. That's about right.  It's too bad I can't tap into my vast arsenal of reaction faces.  TT__TT 

They are still around pushing their doctrines whilst calling members of the body of Christ heretics and not Christian. In the same spirit of the Roman Catholic Church who burnt alive and tortured the true Christians.



Ha ha! Nice.  I see you visit Deviantart as well.
Logged

.- -. -.. / --. --- -.. / ... .... .- .-.. .-.. / .-- .. .--. . / .- .-- .- -.-- / .- .-.. .-.. / - . .- .-. ... / ..-. .-. --- -- / - .... . .. .-. / . -.-- . ...
Didyma
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 242


Apostle of Awkwardness


« Reply #47 on: September 10, 2013, 09:13:21 PM »

Welp, here's her essay on the topic of annihilationism:

_________________________________________________
As many Christians have noticed, one of the main issues non-Christians have with Christianity is the doctrine of the eternal conscious torment of the unsaved in Hell. The doctrine of ECT (as Eternal Conscious Torment will be called here on out) understandably clashes with most people’s sense of justice.  It clashes with mine, too. In fact, I’m sure that the vast majority of Christians have had at least`some emotional distress when they thought about the traditional view of Hell.  Of course, just because something is emotionally displeasing doesn’t mean that it isn’t true, and which view of Hell is true is one of the most crucial things one can know.  Hell is too important for careless thinking and taking one’s own view for granted.  Christians must make sure whether such a major doctrine such as ECT aligns with the Bible.  If it doesn’t fit with Scripture, well,  I’m sure God is very displeased His followers are saying such things about Him.  So, does the Bible really require us to believe that God will keep people alive in Hell forever just to suffer?
 
I won’t beat around the bush any longer.  I don’t think so.  I’m a Conditionalist.  You may have heard of other views of Hell held by Christians besides the majority ECT one, which I will sometimes refer to as Traditionalism.  The largest alternative view of Hell is Universalism, also known as Universal Reconciliation.  Conditionalism, also known as Annihilationism or Conditional Immortality, is less famous (or infamous, I suppose) than Universalism.  Simply put, it holds that eternal life is a gift from God, so the unsaved just won’t live forever. 

A more detailed explanation of Conditionalism is that the unsaved will be resurrected, but unlike the saved, will not be gifted with immortality.  Instead, they will be punished with permanent destruction, which includes a certain degree of suffering during the destruction.  Though the amount and strength of the finite suffering that is involved in the destruction will vary person to person according to divine justice, all the unsaved will eventually cease to exist.  Though the suffering will be finite, the punishment (complete destruction) will be eternal, since there will be no coming back from oblivion after this Second Death. 

“Which verses support your view?” you are right to ask.  Before I tell you, however, I would like to point something out.  Many, or even most Christians are committed to the belief that the soul is either indestructible or will never be destroyed.  While this may not be the only factor that causes someone is a Traditionalist (or a Universalist, for that matter), it’s inevitable that this would affect what a Christian believes about Hell.  I would like any reader who holds this view about the human soul to at least acknowledge how this could affect how they take the defense of my view.  It is very likely that you have read the verses that I am about to quote many times over, but through a sort of ECT “filter.”  I would therefore ask you to acknowledge this figurative filter, and to try to remove it, if possible, just for the sake of trying to understand my position.

Now, on to the scriptural support.  In this essay, I will focus on the Biblical language of destruction, since the argument for Conditional Immortality that is based on it is the most straightforward.   

John 3:16 is among the most quoted verses, and for good reason.  It very succinctly explains the gospel in a way that is easy to understand.  Since it is so commonplace, it is easy to miss important messages in the text.  “For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”   

I can’t think of a clearer way of saying it. 

Logged

.- -. -.. / --. --- -.. / ... .... .- .-.. .-.. / .-- .. .--. . / .- .-- .- -.-- / .- .-.. .-.. / - . .- .-. ... / ..-. .-. --- -- / - .... . .. .-. / . -.-- . ...
Didyma
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 242


Apostle of Awkwardness


« Reply #48 on: September 10, 2013, 09:15:54 PM »

... continued

____________________

« Last Edit: September 10, 2013, 09:16:24 PM by Didyma » Logged

.- -. -.. / --. --- -.. / ... .... .- .-.. .-.. / .-- .. .--. . / .- .-- .- -.-- / .- .-.. .-.. / - . .- .-. ... / ..-. .-. --- -- / - .... . .. .-. / . -.-- . ...
Didyma
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 242


Apostle of Awkwardness


« Reply #49 on: September 10, 2013, 09:17:36 PM »

Hey...what's with these dang question marks?  Ugh.  Well, here's a link to the essay.  http://anditworked.deviantart.com/art/A-Simple-Argument-for-Conditionalism-353874657
Logged

.- -. -.. / --. --- -.. / ... .... .- .-.. .-.. / .-- .. .--. . / .- .-- .- -.-- / .- .-.. .-.. / - . .- .-. ... / ..-. .-. --- -- / - .... . .. .-. / . -.-- . ...
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #50 on: September 10, 2013, 10:04:11 PM »

Many, or even most Christians are committed to the belief that the soul is either indestructible or will never be destroyed.  
We don't.

It is very difficult to "beat" someone at this sort of word game, "What does age-lasting mean?" etc. Taking into account extra-biblical usage is helpful but often this reveals a deep distrust of Christians and Jews of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries BC and AD. And then we end up talking past each other.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2013, 10:11:02 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #51 on: September 10, 2013, 10:12:01 PM »

Hey...what's with these dang question marks?  Ugh.  Well, here's a link to the essay.  http://anditworked.deviantart.com/art/A-Simple-Argument-for-Conditionalism-353874657
You can't read it unless you're logged in to the site.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Nicene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 575


« Reply #52 on: September 11, 2013, 02:35:17 AM »

That teaching seems contrary to what the church has received.
Logged

Thank you.
Didyma
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 242


Apostle of Awkwardness


« Reply #53 on: September 11, 2013, 01:15:09 PM »

Hey...what's with these dang question marks?  Ugh.  Well, here's a link to the essay.  http://anditworked.deviantart.com/art/A-Simple-Argument-for-Conditionalism-353874657
You can't read it unless you're logged in to the site.

But... I am logged onto the site.  Technology! Who needs it?
Logged

.- -. -.. / --. --- -.. / ... .... .- .-.. .-.. / .-- .. .--. . / .- .-- .- -.-- / .- .-.. .-.. / - . .- .-. ... / ..-. .-. --- -- / - .... . .. .-. / . -.-- . ...
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,000


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #54 on: September 11, 2013, 01:27:01 PM »

From the welcome page of rethinkginhell.com

Quote
The Bible is the final authority for Christian belief.

Well, they're you have it.  An assorted number of evangelical groups each with their own proof verses.
Logged

peteprint
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 704



« Reply #55 on: September 11, 2013, 01:50:35 PM »

I have found the idea of annihilationism very appealing as well, though I will accept the Church's decision regarding such things.  I am not sure though if there is a dogmatic view regarding this, since I have read that we are allowed to pray for the salvation of all even though the Church rejects universalism.  What perplexes me are the frequent references in the scriptures to "eternal life."  If the damned are to be bodily resurrected and live forever in hell, then it seems they have eternal life as well, albeit in a horrible place.  The only way around this is to play word games and say that real life is being with the Lord, and that those in hell are not really experiencing life.  Eternal life in the NT always seems to be reference only to the saved:

"what must I do to inherit eternal life" (Luke 18:18)

"I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life." (1 John 5:13)

"I am the resurrection and the life. Anyone who believes in me will live, even after dying. Everyone who lives in me and believes in me will never ever die." (John 11: 25-26)

"For it is my Father's will that all who see his Son and believe in him should have eternal life. I will raise them up at the last day." (John 6: 40)

"But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord " (Romans 6:22-23)

Throughout it seems that eternal life is for the saved, so annihilationism for the damned makes sense to me.

"Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matt. 10:28)

"But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." (Rev. 21-8)

While hell burns forever, I would like to think that the second death really means total destruction.  Again, I accept the Church's decision on these matters.

« Last Edit: September 11, 2013, 01:52:15 PM by peteprint » Logged
Nikolaos Greek
Last among equals
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Greece
Posts: 203



« Reply #56 on: September 11, 2013, 04:10:38 PM »

Souls are material?
They are created. Yes. But have they material? I may be wrong... Please if you can use the fathers...
My mistake second judment I worte while I ment second coming. Embarrassed
Logged

God is Love.
Ό Θεός ἀγάπη ἐστί.
There is no luck, there is no fate. There are always two ways. One is God's and one is devil's. And in each step of your life you have to pick one, always.
peteprint
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 704



« Reply #57 on: September 11, 2013, 04:29:00 PM »

A note to Didyma.

I would see the theory of annihilationism as being totally separate from immateriality or immortality of the soul.  God created everything, and He can destroy anything He wants, so the nature of the soul and its existence is entirely up to Him.  No bearing on annihilationism at all that I can see. 
Logged
Didyma
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 242


Apostle of Awkwardness


« Reply #58 on: September 11, 2013, 09:34:42 PM »

Another resource that she uses: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je3AW6QeXzk&autoplay=1
Logged

.- -. -.. / --. --- -.. / ... .... .- .-.. .-.. / .-- .. .--. . / .- .-- .- -.-- / .- .-.. .-.. / - . .- .-. ... / ..-. .-. --- -- / - .... . .. .-. / . -.-- . ...
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #59 on: September 11, 2013, 11:24:22 PM »

It is a testimony of God's love that he does not destroy what he has made, even if it suffer eternally, having chosen not to receive that love. The love is still given.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #60 on: September 11, 2013, 11:39:11 PM »

It is a testimony of God's love that he does not destroy what he has made, even if it suffer eternally, having chosen not to receive that love. The love is still given.

Does not compute!
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15,500


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #61 on: September 11, 2013, 11:42:04 PM »

So you would rather that God hate than for God to love, right? 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,366


« Reply #62 on: September 11, 2013, 11:44:51 PM »

I would prefer nonexistence to suffering, especially of the eternal variety. I would also gladly make that choice for others if they gave me that power and were in a situation in which I had to act.

Also, I would agree with the suggestion (which I also said earlier in the thread) that materiality and what happens to humans are not necessarily connected. They can be to some extent, but in the end they it is not a decisive part of it IMO.
Logged

There are many foolish priests out there.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #63 on: September 11, 2013, 11:45:10 PM »

It is a testimony of God's love that he does not destroy what he has made, even if it suffer eternally, having chosen not to receive that love. The love is still given.

Does not compute!

How so?

The eternal punishment is the affliction the resurrected, immortal person experiences as a consequence of having rejected the love of God. In a way, hell begins in this life. It is a voluntary condition. But in this life, a person has lots of things to distract him. After the general resurrection, there will be nothing he or she can do to hide from God, to suppress the truth. The "damned" will have no means of escape from the manifestation of love which they refuse--having missed the chance to accept it.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15,500


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #64 on: September 11, 2013, 11:55:35 PM »

I would prefer nonexistence to suffering, especially of the eternal variety. I would also gladly make that choice for others if they gave me that power and were in a situation in which I had to act.

The problem with such statements is that we have no idea what "nonexistence" is.  We assume it involves no suffering, or that it's like sleeping (no consciousness of pain) or death (an end to suffering), and so must be better than "suffering".  But "nonexistence" is as useful a category as "homosexual Republican lasagna-eating unicorns with lupus".  It's a statement necessarily rooted in profound ignorance, but presumes not only to choose such ignorance for oneself, but for others.     
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,366


« Reply #65 on: September 11, 2013, 11:59:46 PM »

I feel the word with the content as seems best. As with faith, God, reason, etc.  Cool
Logged

There are many foolish priests out there.
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #66 on: September 12, 2013, 12:01:45 AM »

Didyma, I will dare to posit, perhaps I am wrong (hopefully Asteriktos will forgive my common misuse of certain terms) that the Annihilationalist position, as we receive it here, is itself the negative answer to a particular dualistic, clinical, stoic sort of question; a question that "traditonalists" answer in the positive.

That question is preceded by a declaration: "To live is to continue to exist. To die means to cease to exist. For humans, to continue to exist means that the mind/soul is functioning." And so the question then is, "Are those condemned at the last judgment still preserved as immortal, or do they cease to exist?"

But is that how Ancient Near Eastern peoples encountered death? Is that how they encountered life? I don't think we see that in Near Eastern texts. Let us examine, first, a version of the Gilgamesh story that comes down to us through the Semitic peoples of Mesopotamia:

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/tr1814.htm
(see the last few paragraphs at the bottom).

The hero Gilgamesh requests that the god Enki pull a dead out of the realm of the dead. The dead man gives an account of what he saw there, the state of those who 'exist', or rather 'persist' there. They 'persist' in darkness and shadow, they are eaten by worms, they carry on in reflection of what exists in the realm of the living.

Are they "conscious"? It is difficult to say. At times they are "conscious" for the sake of the story, at times they are what you would see in a deaf, dumb and blind corpse. And for these Mesopotamians, the two are not contradictory. They are somehow depicting the mystery of death. One is almost reminded of Lazarus and the Rich Man.

In another legend (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/tr141.htm) about the death of a goddess, the Mesopotamian scribes tell us: "The Anuna, the seven judges, rendered their decision against her. They looked at her -- it was the look of death. They spoke to her -- it was the speech of anger. They shouted at her -- it was the shout of heavy guilt. The afflicted woman was turned into a corpse. And the corpse was hung on a hook." She eventually leaves the underworld. But for a while, she lingered there as meat on a hook. Is her soul-mind functioning? Is she sensate? I think that's almost beside the point. For these near eastern people, death shined forth as a woman lingering as meat on a hook.

We might see a similar sort of reality depicted in Job, Isaiah, and in other parts of the Scriptures; Proverbs, the Psalms, etc. And we speak here of the reality of being really dead; the state that the stoic identifies with the negative answer to that question. And yet the dead linger in Sheol. There are shades, there are lingerings. There persist as shadows reflecting the land of the living, the goings on in life, maybe even in a magnified sense. They sit deaf and mute and cold in the depths of the pit, below the freshwater sea.

 Is it not possible, at least, that, as the worshipers of the most high God, Ha Shem, came bearing a great deal of the cosmology common to the Near East, that they shared in the Near Eastern understanding of death, too? "For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth."

And that is something to think about. Now! How this relates to the Second Death at the End of the Ages, when Sheol is destroyed and there are no tombs, that is the next question to ask. Because "Christ is Risen, and not one dead remains in a tomb."
« Last Edit: September 12, 2013, 12:03:39 AM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Nikolaos Greek
Last among equals
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Greece
Posts: 203



« Reply #67 on: September 12, 2013, 09:09:55 AM »

God destroys not what He created. Well the reason to prefer to be destroyed rather than suffer they way we choose it's selfish.
Logged

God is Love.
Ό Θεός ἀγάπη ἐστί.
There is no luck, there is no fate. There are always two ways. One is God's and one is devil's. And in each step of your life you have to pick one, always.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,194



« Reply #68 on: September 12, 2013, 09:24:20 AM »

I would prefer nonexistence to suffering, especially of the eternal variety. I would also gladly make that choice for others if they gave me that power and were in a situation in which I had to act.

The problem with such statements is that we have no idea what "nonexistence" is.  We assume it involves no suffering, or that it's like sleeping (no consciousness of pain) or death (an end to suffering), and so must be better than "suffering".  But "nonexistence" is as useful a category as "homosexual Republican lasagna-eating unicorns with lupus".  It's a statement necessarily rooted in profound ignorance, but presumes not only to choose such ignorance for oneself, but for others.     
There is no "nonexistence" that "is".  It "is" nothing.  It "is" the absence.  My son is nonexistent because I do not have a son.  It does not involve suffering or not suffering. It can't be equated with a "homosexual Republican lasagna-eating unicorns with lupus" as those terms are all things or ideas whether they be imaginary or not.  "Nonexistence" is not that, it is the absence of a thing or idea.

The desire for nonexistence is goal of suicide.  God has not given us that option though.  Each of us exists for a purpose, so while it is possible to wish longingly for nonexistence, the fact is we will never attain that, so there is no use longing for it.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15,500


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #69 on: September 12, 2013, 10:00:05 AM »

There is no "nonexistence" that "is".  It "is" nothing.  It "is" the absence.  My son is nonexistent because I do not have a son.  It does not involve suffering or not suffering. It can't be equated with a "homosexual Republican lasagna-eating unicorns with lupus" as those terms are all things or ideas whether they be imaginary or not.  "Nonexistence" is not that, it is the absence of a thing or idea.

Nonexistence is the absence of existence, which is a thing/idea.  But the fact that we can speak of nonexistence and name it in spite of the fact that "it" does not exist makes it at least as "imaginary" as "homosexual Republican lasagna-eating unicorns with lupus".  If we can speak of the latter because its constituent descriptives are named things/ideas whether imaginary or not, I don't see why the same can't be done for nonexistence. 

Otherwise, I agree with what you wrote.  It underlines the absurdity of such comments as that to which I replied.  Nothing against Asteriktos, mind you.  He's as far from absurd as my unicorn is from reality.   
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Didyma
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 242


Apostle of Awkwardness


« Reply #70 on: September 12, 2013, 11:32:10 AM »

So you would rather that God hate than for God to love, right? 

Whom are you addressing?
Logged

.- -. -.. / --. --- -.. / ... .... .- .-.. .-.. / .-- .. .--. . / .- .-- .- -.-- / .- .-.. .-.. / - . .- .-. ... / ..-. .-. --- -- / - .... . .. .-. / . -.-- . ...
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15,500


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #71 on: September 12, 2013, 11:36:51 AM »

That comment (reply #61) was in response to reply #60. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Didyma
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 242


Apostle of Awkwardness


« Reply #72 on: September 12, 2013, 11:38:40 AM »

Didyma, I will dare to posit, perhaps I am wrong (hopefully Asteriktos will forgive my common misuse of certain terms) that the Annihilationalist position, as we receive it here, is itself the negative answer to a particular dualistic, clinical, stoic sort of question; a question that "traditonalists" answer in the positive.

That question is preceded by a declaration: "To live is to continue to exist. To die means to cease to exist. For humans, to continue to exist means that the mind/soul is functioning." And so the question then is, "Are those condemned at the last judgment still preserved as immortal, or do they cease to exist?"

But is that how Ancient Near Eastern peoples encountered death? Is that how they encountered life? I don't think we see that in Near Eastern texts. Let us examine, first, a version of the Gilgamesh story that comes down to us through the Semitic peoples of Mesopotamia:

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/tr1814.htm
(see the last few paragraphs at the bottom).

The hero Gilgamesh requests that the god Enki pull a dead out of the realm of the dead. The dead man gives an account of what he saw there, the state of those who 'exist', or rather 'persist' there. They 'persist' in darkness and shadow, they are eaten by worms, they carry on in reflection of what exists in the realm of the living.

Are they "conscious"? It is difficult to say. At times they are "conscious" for the sake of the story, at times they are what you would see in a deaf, dumb and blind corpse. And for these Mesopotamians, the two are not contradictory. They are somehow depicting the mystery of death. One is almost reminded of Lazarus and the Rich Man.

In another legend (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/tr141.htm) about the death of a goddess, the Mesopotamian scribes tell us: "The Anuna, the seven judges, rendered their decision against her. They looked at her -- it was the look of death. They spoke to her -- it was the speech of anger. They shouted at her -- it was the shout of heavy guilt. The afflicted woman was turned into a corpse. And the corpse was hung on a hook." She eventually leaves the underworld. But for a while, she lingered there as meat on a hook. Is her soul-mind functioning? Is she sensate? I think that's almost beside the point. For these near eastern people, death shined forth as a woman lingering as meat on a hook.

We might see a similar sort of reality depicted in Job, Isaiah, and in other parts of the Scriptures; Proverbs, the Psalms, etc. And we speak here of the reality of being really dead; the state that the stoic identifies with the negative answer to that question. And yet the dead linger in Sheol. There are shades, there are lingerings. There persist as shadows reflecting the land of the living, the goings on in life, maybe even in a magnified sense. They sit deaf and mute and cold in the depths of the pit, below the freshwater sea.

 Is it not possible, at least, that, as the worshipers of the most high God, Ha Shem, came bearing a great deal of the cosmology common to the Near East, that they shared in the Near Eastern understanding of death, too? "For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth."

And that is something to think about. Now! How this relates to the Second Death at the End of the Ages, when Sheol is destroyed and there are no tombs, that is the next question to ask. Because "Christ is Risen, and not one dead remains in a tomb."

I don't quite understand.
Logged

.- -. -.. / --. --- -.. / ... .... .- .-.. .-.. / .-- .. .--. . / .- .-- .- -.-- / .- .-.. .-.. / - . .- .-. ... / ..-. .-. --- -- / - .... . .. .-. / . -.-- . ...
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #73 on: September 12, 2013, 06:23:26 PM »

Didyma, I will dare to posit, perhaps I am wrong (hopefully Asteriktos will forgive my common misuse of certain terms) that the Annihilationalist position, as we receive it here, is itself the negative answer to a particular dualistic, clinical, stoic sort of question; a question that "traditonalists" answer in the positive.

That question is preceded by a declaration: "To live is to continue to exist. To die means to cease to exist. For humans, to continue to exist means that the mind/soul is functioning." And so the question then is, "Are those condemned at the last judgment still preserved as immortal, or do they cease to exist?"

But is that how Ancient Near Eastern peoples encountered death? Is that how they encountered life? I don't think we see that in Near Eastern texts. Let us examine, first, a version of the Gilgamesh story that comes down to us through the Semitic peoples of Mesopotamia:

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/tr1814.htm
(see the last few paragraphs at the bottom).

The hero Gilgamesh requests that the god Enki pull a dead out of the realm of the dead. The dead man gives an account of what he saw there, the state of those who 'exist', or rather 'persist' there. They 'persist' in darkness and shadow, they are eaten by worms, they carry on in reflection of what exists in the realm of the living.

Are they "conscious"? It is difficult to say. At times they are "conscious" for the sake of the story, at times they are what you would see in a deaf, dumb and blind corpse. And for these Mesopotamians, the two are not contradictory. They are somehow depicting the mystery of death. One is almost reminded of Lazarus and the Rich Man.

In another legend (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/tr141.htm) about the death of a goddess, the Mesopotamian scribes tell us: "The Anuna, the seven judges, rendered their decision against her. They looked at her -- it was the look of death. They spoke to her -- it was the speech of anger. They shouted at her -- it was the shout of heavy guilt. The afflicted woman was turned into a corpse. And the corpse was hung on a hook." She eventually leaves the underworld. But for a while, she lingered there as meat on a hook. Is her soul-mind functioning? Is she sensate? I think that's almost beside the point. For these near eastern people, death shined forth as a woman lingering as meat on a hook.

We might see a similar sort of reality depicted in Job, Isaiah, and in other parts of the Scriptures; Proverbs, the Psalms, etc. And we speak here of the reality of being really dead; the state that the stoic identifies with the negative answer to that question. And yet the dead linger in Sheol. There are shades, there are lingerings. There persist as shadows reflecting the land of the living, the goings on in life, maybe even in a magnified sense. They sit deaf and mute and cold in the depths of the pit, below the freshwater sea.

 Is it not possible, at least, that, as the worshipers of the most high God, Ha Shem, came bearing a great deal of the cosmology common to the Near East, that they shared in the Near Eastern understanding of death, too? "For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth."

And that is something to think about. Now! How this relates to the Second Death at the End of the Ages, when Sheol is destroyed and there are no tombs, that is the next question to ask. Because "Christ is Risen, and not one dead remains in a tomb."

I don't quite understand.

My point is that many Near Eastern peoples might not have even understood the exist/not exist conscious/unconscious clinical understanding of death. And so the question of "ECT" or whatever is a foreign question.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,000


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #74 on: September 12, 2013, 06:27:52 PM »

What's more clinical than not breathing, no heartbeat, and starting to rot?
Logged

Didyma
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 242


Apostle of Awkwardness


« Reply #75 on: September 12, 2013, 10:01:16 PM »

Didyma, I will dare to posit, perhaps I am wrong (hopefully Asteriktos will forgive my common misuse of certain terms) that the Annihilationalist position, as we receive it here, is itself the negative answer to a particular dualistic, clinical, stoic sort of question; a question that "traditonalists" answer in the positive.

That question is preceded by a declaration: "To live is to continue to exist. To die means to cease to exist. For humans, to continue to exist means that the mind/soul is functioning." And so the question then is, "Are those condemned at the last judgment still preserved as immortal, or do they cease to exist?"

But is that how Ancient Near Eastern peoples encountered death? Is that how they encountered life? I don't think we see that in Near Eastern texts. Let us examine, first, a version of the Gilgamesh story that comes down to us through the Semitic peoples of Mesopotamia:

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/tr1814.htm
(see the last few paragraphs at the bottom).

The hero Gilgamesh requests that the god Enki pull a dead out of the realm of the dead. The dead man gives an account of what he saw there, the state of those who 'exist', or rather 'persist' there. They 'persist' in darkness and shadow, they are eaten by worms, they carry on in reflection of what exists in the realm of the living.

Are they "conscious"? It is difficult to say. At times they are "conscious" for the sake of the story, at times they are what you would see in a deaf, dumb and blind corpse. And for these Mesopotamians, the two are not contradictory. They are somehow depicting the mystery of death. One is almost reminded of Lazarus and the Rich Man.

In another legend (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/tr141.htm) about the death of a goddess, the Mesopotamian scribes tell us: "The Anuna, the seven judges, rendered their decision against her. They looked at her -- it was the look of death. They spoke to her -- it was the speech of anger. They shouted at her -- it was the shout of heavy guilt. The afflicted woman was turned into a corpse. And the corpse was hung on a hook." She eventually leaves the underworld. But for a while, she lingered there as meat on a hook. Is her soul-mind functioning? Is she sensate? I think that's almost beside the point. For these near eastern people, death shined forth as a woman lingering as meat on a hook.

We might see a similar sort of reality depicted in Job, Isaiah, and in other parts of the Scriptures; Proverbs, the Psalms, etc. And we speak here of the reality of being really dead; the state that the stoic identifies with the negative answer to that question. And yet the dead linger in Sheol. There are shades, there are lingerings. There persist as shadows reflecting the land of the living, the goings on in life, maybe even in a magnified sense. They sit deaf and mute and cold in the depths of the pit, below the freshwater sea.

 Is it not possible, at least, that, as the worshipers of the most high God, Ha Shem, came bearing a great deal of the cosmology common to the Near East, that they shared in the Near Eastern understanding of death, too? "For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth."

And that is something to think about. Now! How this relates to the Second Death at the End of the Ages, when Sheol is destroyed and there are no tombs, that is the next question to ask. Because "Christ is Risen, and not one dead remains in a tomb."

I don't quite understand.

My point is that many Near Eastern peoples might not have even understood the exist/not exist conscious/unconscious clinical understanding of death. And so the question of "ECT" or whatever is a foreign question.

What would the Near Eastern peoples understand death as?
Logged

.- -. -.. / --. --- -.. / ... .... .- .-.. .-.. / .-- .. .--. . / .- .-- .- -.-- / .- .-.. .-.. / - . .- .-. ... / ..-. .-. --- -- / - .... . .. .-. / . -.-- . ...
Didyma
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 242


Apostle of Awkwardness


« Reply #76 on: September 12, 2013, 10:30:48 PM »

From my sister:

"They seem to be getting confused because you posted two views of mine that aren't really related, and some of them seem to think that I'm an annihilationist because I'm an anthropological materialist (which is another reason why you should have done separate threads). 
Please explain that I'm an annihilationist because the Bible very clearly says that God can and will destroy the risen wicked. 
Also, you posted the Church fathers who were conditionalists video, which is good, but you didn't really explain it.  Please explain that I'm sharing it to provide evidence that some early church fathers were annihilationists/conditionalists, as someone asked early on for proof. (It would also be good to post the link again after explaining that so they don't have to go hunting for it.)
Could you tell them that I applied to join the forum so that I could talk to them directly?"
Logged

.- -. -.. / --. --- -.. / ... .... .- .-.. .-.. / .-- .. .--. . / .- .-- .- -.-- / .- .-.. .-.. / - . .- .-. ... / ..-. .-. --- -- / - .... . .. .-. / . -.-- . ...
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,366


« Reply #77 on: September 12, 2013, 10:42:23 PM »

I believe part of the materialism thing is my fault, as it is a bit of a pet concept I like to post about, and I should not have pushed that part of it. I apologize for that.
Logged

There are many foolish priests out there.
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #78 on: September 13, 2013, 01:19:22 AM »

Didyma, I will dare to posit, perhaps I am wrong (hopefully Asteriktos will forgive my common misuse of certain terms) that the Annihilationalist position, as we receive it here, is itself the negative answer to a particular dualistic, clinical, stoic sort of question; a question that "traditonalists" answer in the positive.

That question is preceded by a declaration: "To live is to continue to exist. To die means to cease to exist. For humans, to continue to exist means that the mind/soul is functioning." And so the question then is, "Are those condemned at the last judgment still preserved as immortal, or do they cease to exist?"

But is that how Ancient Near Eastern peoples encountered death? Is that how they encountered life? I don't think we see that in Near Eastern texts. Let us examine, first, a version of the Gilgamesh story that comes down to us through the Semitic peoples of Mesopotamia:

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/tr1814.htm
(see the last few paragraphs at the bottom).

The hero Gilgamesh requests that the god Enki pull a dead out of the realm of the dead. The dead man gives an account of what he saw there, the state of those who 'exist', or rather 'persist' there. They 'persist' in darkness and shadow, they are eaten by worms, they carry on in reflection of what exists in the realm of the living.

Are they "conscious"? It is difficult to say. At times they are "conscious" for the sake of the story, at times they are what you would see in a deaf, dumb and blind corpse. And for these Mesopotamians, the two are not contradictory. They are somehow depicting the mystery of death. One is almost reminded of Lazarus and the Rich Man.

In another legend (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/tr141.htm) about the death of a goddess, the Mesopotamian scribes tell us: "The Anuna, the seven judges, rendered their decision against her. They looked at her -- it was the look of death. They spoke to her -- it was the speech of anger. They shouted at her -- it was the shout of heavy guilt. The afflicted woman was turned into a corpse. And the corpse was hung on a hook." She eventually leaves the underworld. But for a while, she lingered there as meat on a hook. Is her soul-mind functioning? Is she sensate? I think that's almost beside the point. For these near eastern people, death shined forth as a woman lingering as meat on a hook.

We might see a similar sort of reality depicted in Job, Isaiah, and in other parts of the Scriptures; Proverbs, the Psalms, etc. And we speak here of the reality of being really dead; the state that the stoic identifies with the negative answer to that question. And yet the dead linger in Sheol. There are shades, there are lingerings. There persist as shadows reflecting the land of the living, the goings on in life, maybe even in a magnified sense. They sit deaf and mute and cold in the depths of the pit, below the freshwater sea.

 Is it not possible, at least, that, as the worshipers of the most high God, Ha Shem, came bearing a great deal of the cosmology common to the Near East, that they shared in the Near Eastern understanding of death, too? "For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth."

And that is something to think about. Now! How this relates to the Second Death at the End of the Ages, when Sheol is destroyed and there are no tombs, that is the next question to ask. Because "Christ is Risen, and not one dead remains in a tomb."

I don't quite understand.

My point is that many Near Eastern peoples might not have even understood the exist/not exist conscious/unconscious clinical understanding of death. And so the question of "ECT" or whatever is a foreign question.

What would the Near Eastern peoples understand death as?

Lingering as meat on a hook, in darkness and shadow, with no alleluia.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,000


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #79 on: September 13, 2013, 06:36:09 AM »

Didyma, I will dare to posit, perhaps I am wrong (hopefully Asteriktos will forgive my common misuse of certain terms) that the Annihilationalist position, as we receive it here, is itself the negative answer to a particular dualistic, clinical, stoic sort of question; a question that "traditonalists" answer in the positive.

That question is preceded by a declaration: "To live is to continue to exist. To die means to cease to exist. For humans, to continue to exist means that the mind/soul is functioning." And so the question then is, "Are those condemned at the last judgment still preserved as immortal, or do they cease to exist?"

But is that how Ancient Near Eastern peoples encountered death? Is that how they encountered life? I don't think we see that in Near Eastern texts. Let us examine, first, a version of the Gilgamesh story that comes down to us through the Semitic peoples of Mesopotamia:

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/tr1814.htm
(see the last few paragraphs at the bottom).

The hero Gilgamesh requests that the god Enki pull a dead out of the realm of the dead. The dead man gives an account of what he saw there, the state of those who 'exist', or rather 'persist' there. They 'persist' in darkness and shadow, they are eaten by worms, they carry on in reflection of what exists in the realm of the living.

Are they "conscious"? It is difficult to say. At times they are "conscious" for the sake of the story, at times they are what you would see in a deaf, dumb and blind corpse. And for these Mesopotamians, the two are not contradictory. They are somehow depicting the mystery of death. One is almost reminded of Lazarus and the Rich Man.

In another legend (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/tr141.htm) about the death of a goddess, the Mesopotamian scribes tell us: "The Anuna, the seven judges, rendered their decision against her. They looked at her -- it was the look of death. They spoke to her -- it was the speech of anger. They shouted at her -- it was the shout of heavy guilt. The afflicted woman was turned into a corpse. And the corpse was hung on a hook." She eventually leaves the underworld. But for a while, she lingered there as meat on a hook. Is her soul-mind functioning? Is she sensate? I think that's almost beside the point. For these near eastern people, death shined forth as a woman lingering as meat on a hook.

We might see a similar sort of reality depicted in Job, Isaiah, and in other parts of the Scriptures; Proverbs, the Psalms, etc. And we speak here of the reality of being really dead; the state that the stoic identifies with the negative answer to that question. And yet the dead linger in Sheol. There are shades, there are lingerings. There persist as shadows reflecting the land of the living, the goings on in life, maybe even in a magnified sense. They sit deaf and mute and cold in the depths of the pit, below the freshwater sea.

 Is it not possible, at least, that, as the worshipers of the most high God, Ha Shem, came bearing a great deal of the cosmology common to the Near East, that they shared in the Near Eastern understanding of death, too? "For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth."

And that is something to think about. Now! How this relates to the Second Death at the End of the Ages, when Sheol is destroyed and there are no tombs, that is the next question to ask. Because "Christ is Risen, and not one dead remains in a tomb."

I don't quite understand.

My point is that many Near Eastern peoples might not have even understood the exist/not exist conscious/unconscious clinical understanding of death. And so the question of "ECT" or whatever is a foreign question.

What would the Near Eastern peoples understand death as?

Lingering as meat on a hook, in darkness and shadow, with no alleluia.

For some reason, that is more terrifying than the hell-fire imagery I grew up with.
Logged

Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #80 on: September 13, 2013, 11:46:31 AM »

I would prefer nonexistence to suffering, especially of the eternal variety. I would also gladly make that choice for others if they gave me that power and were in a situation in which I had to act.

The problem with such statements is that we have no idea what "nonexistence" is.  We assume it involves no suffering, or that it's like sleeping (no consciousness of pain) or death (an end to suffering), and so must be better than "suffering".  But "nonexistence" is as useful a category as "homosexual Republican lasagna-eating unicorns with lupus".  It's a statement necessarily rooted in profound ignorance, but presumes not only to choose such ignorance for oneself, but for others.     

Of course there are no "homosexual Republican lasagna-eating unicorns with lupus." Unicorns can't digest lasagna. It is you who are ignorant, sir.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15,500


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #81 on: September 13, 2013, 11:50:45 AM »

Of course there are no "homosexual Republican lasagna-eating unicorns with lupus." Unicorns can't digest lasagna. It is you who are ignorant, sir.

Four out of five ain't bad.  That's the same percentage of dentists who recommend any toothpaste I use. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Nikolaos Greek
Last among equals
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Greece
Posts: 203



« Reply #82 on: September 13, 2013, 02:40:40 PM »

Where it says God will destroy the wicked?
Logged

God is Love.
Ό Θεός ἀγάπη ἐστί.
There is no luck, there is no fate. There are always two ways. One is God's and one is devil's. And in each step of your life you have to pick one, always.
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #83 on: September 13, 2013, 08:02:59 PM »

Quote
Lingering as meat on a hook, in darkness and shadow, with no alleluia.

For some reason, that is more terrifying than the hell-fire imagery I grew up with.
Yes. But hear the Paschal Nocturne:

"By my own will the earth covers me, O Mother.
But the gatekeepers of Hades tremble as they behold me
Clothed in the bloodstained garment of vengeance:
For on the Cross as God have I struck down my enemies
and I shall rise again and magnify you.

Let the creation rejoice exceedingly, let all those born on earth be glad
For Hades, the enemy, has been despoiled.
Ye women, come to meet me with sweet spices:
For I am delivering Adam and Eve with all their offspring,
and on the third day I shall rise again."
« Last Edit: September 13, 2013, 08:03:50 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #84 on: September 13, 2013, 08:09:03 PM »

What's more clinical than not breathing, no heartbeat, and starting to rot?
What is more mysterious and veiled in the heart of a man?
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #85 on: September 14, 2013, 08:12:19 AM »

Quote
So for the sanctified by God the Holy Spirit Bourne Again Christians there is no death or nakedness for our souls as we are pardoned from the final judgement, to immediately migrate directly from life in the earthly tent to life with Christ in the heavenly tent.

Is this like Jason Bourne who can jump out of helicopters and wipe out dozens of people with one magazine clip?  'Cause I would really like to meet some Christians like that.  I bet they are rock stars at evangelizing.

You have no idea how much effort it took for me not to post something Jason Bournesque the first time I read the post you quoted. 

I thought it was someone writing in Englandish using the pointless and unnecessary vowels and they like to do.
Logged

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

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #86 on: September 14, 2013, 08:13:34 AM »

What's more clinical than not breathing, no heartbeat, and starting to rot?
What is more mysterious and veiled in the heart of a man?

Is this poetry for plaque?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,743



« Reply #87 on: September 14, 2013, 08:16:24 AM »

The Christian view on the immortality of the soul is somewhat different from the Platonist view. The Platonists believed the soul to be immortal because it was so by very nature (vide the Phaedo). The more traditional Christian view is that the soul is immortal by the grace of God. A small, but sometimes important, detail.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2013, 08:17:47 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a OC.net diet.

"Chi son?  Sono un poeta. Che cosa faccio? Scrivo. E come vivo?  Vivo."
-Giacomo Puccini
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #88 on: September 14, 2013, 08:18:16 AM »

I believe part of the materialism thing is my fault, as it is a bit of a pet concept I like to post about, and I should not have pushed that part of it. I apologize for that.

No you should push. It ain't that hard. People are on a forum for an somewhat informed discussion about Orthodoxy. If they can't get their minds around these basics, they should stick to sports and absolutely avoid the politics forum.

So, please everyone till I work out the approved list, stick to the sports thread.
Logged

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

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #89 on: September 14, 2013, 08:21:54 AM »

The Christian view on the immortality of the soul is somewhat different from the Platonist view. The Platonists believed the soul to be immortal because it was so by very nature (vide the Phaedo). The more traditional Christian view is that the soul is immortal by the grace of God. A small, but sometimes important, detail.

So then, the soul is not immortal as such. Really, most of your Fathers were just rearranging chairs on the deck of the Platonic.

That is also not the more "traditional view", perhaps the more Patristic. A huge difference there.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #90 on: September 14, 2013, 01:33:07 PM »

The Christian view on the immortality of the soul is somewhat different from the Platonist view. The Platonists believed the soul to be immortal because it was so by very nature (vide the Phaedo). The more traditional Christian view is that the soul is immortal by the grace of God. A small, but sometimes important, detail.


Patristic references?
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #91 on: September 14, 2013, 02:33:52 PM »

What's more clinical than not breathing, no heartbeat, and starting to rot?
What is more mysterious and veiled in the heart of a man?

Is this poetry for plaque?
It's written on the face of the last layer of a nesting doll.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Didyma
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 242


Apostle of Awkwardness


« Reply #92 on: September 14, 2013, 10:01:59 PM »

Huh?
Logged

.- -. -.. / --. --- -.. / ... .... .- .-.. .-.. / .-- .. .--. . / .- .-- .- -.-- / .- .-.. .-.. / - . .- .-. ... / ..-. .-. --- -- / - .... . .. .-. / . -.-- . ...
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #93 on: September 15, 2013, 02:04:59 AM »

Huh?

oc.net is pangender friendly.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 242


Apostle of Awkwardness


« Reply #94 on: September 17, 2013, 10:15:55 PM »

Eh?
Logged

.- -. -.. / --. --- -.. / ... .... .- .-.. .-.. / .-- .. .--. . / .- .-- .- -.-- / .- .-.. .-.. / - . .- .-. ... / ..-. .-. --- -- / - .... . .. .-. / . -.-- . ...
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #95 on: September 17, 2013, 10:58:18 PM »


He?
Logged
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,000


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #96 on: September 18, 2013, 06:46:23 AM »

Who?
Logged

PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,603


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #97 on: September 18, 2013, 01:16:55 PM »

Enough of the low-content posts. Let's get this thread back on topic. Thank you.
Logged
Aeschere
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christianity
Jurisdiction: No Denomination
Posts: 30



« Reply #98 on: September 18, 2013, 05:11:38 PM »

Hello!  I’m Didyma’s identical twin.  I joined this forum to cut out the middleman in our discussion.  I would prefer that we only discuss one of the topics my sister pointed out in the OP: Christian Anthropological Monism/Materialism/Physicalism, or Conditionalism/Annihilationism.  I’d rather not debate both at once.  It seems like the people here are mostly discussing annihilationism, and I’m newer to the Christian anthropological monism view, so I’m not as good at explaining it.  Therefore, I’d like to just discuss annihilationism, if that’s fine with you guys.  If you want, I’ll refer you to the podcasts that persuaded me to take on the CAM position, but I won’t be discussing them (not in this thread, at least).  (Don’t be surprised if I don’t start the CAM thread.  I’m pretty busy adjusting to college right now.)

I’m a little busy right now, so to start us off I’ll attempt to post my essay outlining the argument for annihilationism/conditionalism from the Biblical language of destruction that my sister posted earlier:

“As many Christians have noticed, one of the main issues non-Christians have with Christianity is the doctrine of the eternal conscious torment of the unsaved in Hell. The doctrine of ECT (as Eternal Conscious Torment will be called here on out) understandably clashes with most people’s sense of justice.  It clashes with mine, too. In fact, I’m sure that the vast majority of Christians have had at least some emotional distress when they thought about the traditional view of Hell.  Of course, just because something is emotionally displeasing doesn’t mean that it isn’t true, and which view of Hell is true is one of the most crucial things one can know.  Hell is too important for careless thinking and taking one’s own view for granted.  Christians must make sure whether such a major doctrine such as ECT aligns with the Bible.  If it doesn’t fit with Scripture, well, I’m sure God is very displeased His followers are saying such things about Him.  So, does the Bible really require us to believe that God will keep people alive in Hell forever just to suffer?

I won’t beat around the bush any longer.  I don’t think so.  I’m a Conditionalist.  You may have heard of other views of Hell held by Christians besides the majority ECT one, which I will sometimes refer to as Traditionalism.  The largest alternative view of Hell is Universalism, also known as Universal Reconciliation.  Conditionalism, also known as Annihilationism or Conditional Immortality, is less famous (or infamous, I suppose) than Universalism.  Simply put, it holds that eternal life is a gift from God, so the unsaved just won’t live forever. 

A more detailed explanation of Conditionalism is that the unsaved will be resurrected, but unlike the saved, will not be gifted with immortality.  Instead, they will be punished with permanent destruction, which includes a certain degree of suffering during the destruction.  Though the amount and strength of the finite suffering that is involved in the destruction will vary person to person according to divine justice, all the unsaved will eventually cease to exist.  Though the suffering will be finite, the punishment (complete destruction) will be eternal, since there will be no coming back from oblivion after this Second Death. 

'Which verses support your view?' you are right to ask.  Before I tell you, however, I would like to point something out.  Many, or even most Christians are committed to the belief that the soul is either indestructible or will never be destroyed.  While this may not be the only factor that causes someone is a Traditionalist (or a Universalist, for that matter), it’s inevitable that this would affect what a Christian believes about Hell.  I would like any reader who holds this view about the human soul to at least acknowledge how this could affect how they take the defense of my view.  It is very likely that you have read the verses that I am about to quote many times over, but through a sort of ECT 'filter.'  I would therefore ask you to acknowledge this figurative filter, and to try to remove it, if possible, just for the sake of trying to understand my position.

Now, on to the scriptural support.  In this essay, I will focus on the Biblical language of destruction, since the argument for Conditional Immortality that is based on it is the most straightforward.   

John 3:16 is among the most quoted verses, and for good reason.  It very succinctly explains the gospel in a way that is easy to understand.  Since it is so commonplace, it is easy to miss important messages in the text.  'For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.'   

I can’t think of a clearer way of saying it. 

'[...] whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.'

I have heard the explanation that perishing can mean being apart from God.  And it does mean that.  People who don’t exist can certainly be considered apart from I Am.  But interpreting a word like “perish” in such a straightforward context as meaning 'Living forever (but in a horrifyingly painful place)' is simply bad hermeneutics. 

Here’s another verse: Romans 6:23.  'For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.'  The wages of sin is death, and eternal life is a gift, not a given. 

Another important verse is Matthew 10:28, in which Jesus says to fear God, who can destroy the whole person in Gehenna.  (While Gehenna is usually translated as Hell, I and many other Conditionalists believe that that translation is unhelpful, since when one thinks of Hell, one usually thinks of images from the traditional, ECT view.)

In 1 Corinthians 3:17, it states that God will destroy the wicked.  In 2 Thessalonians 1:9, it says that the wicked will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and the glory of His power.  In Psalm 104:35, it states that the wicked will be no more.  According to Psalm 139:19, God will slay the wicked.  The wicked will be like smoke that vanishes, and the ashes of burned chaff under the feet of the righteous, according to Psalm 68:2 and Malachi 4:1-3, respectively.  I won’t list all of the verses I know of that support the Conditionalist view. That would be monotonous.  I am confident that you can understand the language of the verses I’ve already quoted, but in case you would like to see more, I will include a fuller list in the description. [meaning the description in deviantart]

One of the verses that is most often used by Traditionalists against Conditionalists is Isaiah 66:24, and by extent Mark 9:48, which quotes it. These verses can actually be used to support Conditionalism.   Based on the definition of the word “quench,” a fire never being quenched means that it won’t be put out, not that it will never burn out.  In addition, the worm, according to the closest translations to the original manuscripts 'will not,' 'shall not,' or 'does not' die.  The worm will not 'never' die.  To interpret 'never' from 'will not' makes matters absurd.  For example, if a park ranger told me that if I took a certain precautions that I would not die, it wouldn’t be rational to think he was saying that I would never die.  He would be saying that if I followed his instructions, I would not die at that time.  A good example from the Bible would be Genesis 42:20, where Joseph tells his brothers to verify their claims by bringing their youngest brother, and they will not die.  Joseph didn’t mean that by bringing Benjamin to him, his brothers would attain immortality.  He just meant that if they followed his instructions at that time, he wouldn’t have them killed.  In that context, they were offered life, but outside of that context, life was not guaranteed.  It’s the same with Isaiah 66:24 and Mark 9:48.  It is assured that the worms (and the fire) will not be prevented from consuming the corpses, but the worm and fire are not guaranteed continuance after that.  The agents of destruction will do what they do best until their job is done. 

However, the permanence of the worms and the fire is not really the most important part of these verses.  In Isaiah 66:24, those who rebel against God are not described as alive in any sense.  They are corpses.  The corpses are being destroyed, not tormented by the worms and the fire.  In Mark 9:48, Jesus is quoting Isaiah 66:48, so based on that fact and the wealth of verses referring to the death and destruction of the unsaved, He is also referring to corpses. 

Does the imagery in these verses paint a picture of people living in torment forever, of people being refined for eternal life with God, or of people perishing?

When I was first shown what these verses were clearly saying, my mind was (pleasantly) blown.  This certainly sounded a lot more like God.  I was expecting to fight the Conditionalist view more, but I soon happily switched sides.  If, after you have read these verses, you find that the Conditionalist view makes better sense out of these verses, don’t be afraid to reconsider your view, too.”




It is important to note that the argument from the Biblical language of destruction is not the only argument for annihilationism.

Here's the proof (outlined in video form) about church fathers who were annihilationists [these are only the ones with the least disputable texts.  The Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the author of First and Second Clement (Clement?), all say annihilationist-sounding things, but those things are more disputably annihilationist]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je3AW6QeXzk&autoplay=1
Here's the list in the video: Ignatius of Antioch, Barnabas the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, Irenaeus of Lyons, Arnobius of Sicca, and Athanasius the Great.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #99 on: September 18, 2013, 06:49:47 PM »

Hello!  I’m Didyma’s identical twin.  I joined this forum to cut out the middleman in our discussion.  I would prefer that we only discuss one of the topics my sister pointed out in the OP: Christian Anthropological Monism/Materialism/Physicalism, or Conditionalism/Annihilationism.  I’d rather not debate both at once.  It seems like the people here are mostly discussing annihilationism, and I’m newer to the Christian anthropological monism view, so I’m not as good at explaining it.  Therefore, I’d like to just discuss annihilationism, if that’s fine with you guys.  If you want, I’ll refer you to the podcasts that persuaded me to take on the CAM position, but I won’t be discussing them (not in this thread, at least).  (Don’t be surprised if I don’t start the CAM thread.  I’m pretty busy adjusting to college right now.)

I’m a little busy right now, so to start us off I’ll attempt to post my essay outlining the argument for annihilationism/conditionalism from the Biblical language of destruction that my sister posted earlier:

“As many Christians have noticed, one of the main issues non-Christians have with Christianity is the doctrine of the eternal conscious torment of the unsaved in Hell. The doctrine of ECT (as Eternal Conscious Torment will be called here on out) understandably clashes with most people’s sense of justice.  It clashes with mine, too. In fact, I’m sure that the vast majority of Christians have had at least some emotional distress when they thought about the traditional view of Hell.  Of course, just because something is emotionally displeasing doesn’t mean that it isn’t true, and which view of Hell is true is one of the most crucial things one can know.  Hell is too important for careless thinking and taking one’s own view for granted.  Christians must make sure whether such a major doctrine such as ECT aligns with the Bible.  If it doesn’t fit with Scripture, well, I’m sure God is very displeased His followers are saying such things about Him.  So, does the Bible really require us to believe that God will keep people alive in Hell forever just to suffer?

I won’t beat around the bush any longer.  I don’t think so.  I’m a Conditionalist.  You may have heard of other views of Hell held by Christians besides the majority ECT one, which I will sometimes refer to as Traditionalism.  The largest alternative view of Hell is Universalism, also known as Universal Reconciliation.  Conditionalism, also known as Annihilationism or Conditional Immortality, is less famous (or infamous, I suppose) than Universalism.  Simply put, it holds that eternal life is a gift from God, so the unsaved just won’t live forever. 

A more detailed explanation of Conditionalism is that the unsaved will be resurrected, but unlike the saved, will not be gifted with immortality.  Instead, they will be punished with permanent destruction, which includes a certain degree of suffering during the destruction.  Though the amount and strength of the finite suffering that is involved in the destruction will vary person to person according to divine justice, all the unsaved will eventually cease to exist.  Though the suffering will be finite, the punishment (complete destruction) will be eternal, since there will be no coming back from oblivion after this Second Death. 

'Which verses support your view?' you are right to ask.  Before I tell you, however, I would like to point something out.  Many, or even most Christians are committed to the belief that the soul is either indestructible or will never be destroyed.  While this may not be the only factor that causes someone is a Traditionalist (or a Universalist, for that matter), it’s inevitable that this would affect what a Christian believes about Hell.  I would like any reader who holds this view about the human soul to at least acknowledge how this could affect how they take the defense of my view.  It is very likely that you have read the verses that I am about to quote many times over, but through a sort of ECT 'filter.'  I would therefore ask you to acknowledge this figurative filter, and to try to remove it, if possible, just for the sake of trying to understand my position.

Now, on to the scriptural support.  In this essay, I will focus on the Biblical language of destruction, since the argument for Conditional Immortality that is based on it is the most straightforward.   

John 3:16 is among the most quoted verses, and for good reason.  It very succinctly explains the gospel in a way that is easy to understand.  Since it is so commonplace, it is easy to miss important messages in the text.  'For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.'   

I can’t think of a clearer way of saying it. 

'[...] whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.'

I have heard the explanation that perishing can mean being apart from God.  And it does mean that.  People who don’t exist can certainly be considered apart from I Am.  But interpreting a word like “perish” in such a straightforward context as meaning 'Living forever (but in a horrifyingly painful place)' is simply bad hermeneutics. 

Here’s another verse: Romans 6:23.  'For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.'  The wages of sin is death, and eternal life is a gift, not a given. 

Another important verse is Matthew 10:28, in which Jesus says to fear God, who can destroy the whole person in Gehenna.  (While Gehenna is usually translated as Hell, I and many other Conditionalists believe that that translation is unhelpful, since when one thinks of Hell, one usually thinks of images from the traditional, ECT view.)

In 1 Corinthians 3:17, it states that God will destroy the wicked.  In 2 Thessalonians 1:9, it says that the wicked will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and the glory of His power.  In Psalm 104:35, it states that the wicked will be no more.  According to Psalm 139:19, God will slay the wicked.  The wicked will be like smoke that vanishes, and the ashes of burned chaff under the feet of the righteous, according to Psalm 68:2 and Malachi 4:1-3, respectively.  I won’t list all of the verses I know of that support the Conditionalist view. That would be monotonous.  I am confident that you can understand the language of the verses I’ve already quoted, but in case you would like to see more, I will include a fuller list in the description. [meaning the description in deviantart]

One of the verses that is most often used by Traditionalists against Conditionalists is Isaiah 66:24, and by extent Mark 9:48, which quotes it. These verses can actually be used to support Conditionalism.   Based on the definition of the word “quench,” a fire never being quenched means that it won’t be put out, not that it will never burn out.  In addition, the worm, according to the closest translations to the original manuscripts 'will not,' 'shall not,' or 'does not' die.  The worm will not 'never' die.  To interpret 'never' from 'will not' makes matters absurd.  For example, if a park ranger told me that if I took a certain precautions that I would not die, it wouldn’t be rational to think he was saying that I would never die.  He would be saying that if I followed his instructions, I would not die at that time.  A good example from the Bible would be Genesis 42:20, where Joseph tells his brothers to verify their claims by bringing their youngest brother, and they will not die.  Joseph didn’t mean that by bringing Benjamin to him, his brothers would attain immortality.  He just meant that if they followed his instructions at that time, he wouldn’t have them killed.  In that context, they were offered life, but outside of that context, life was not guaranteed.  It’s the same with Isaiah 66:24 and Mark 9:48.  It is assured that the worms (and the fire) will not be prevented from consuming the corpses, but the worm and fire are not guaranteed continuance after that.  The agents of destruction will do what they do best until their job is done. 

However, the permanence of the worms and the fire is not really the most important part of these verses.  In Isaiah 66:24, those who rebel against God are not described as alive in any sense.  They are corpses.  The corpses are being destroyed, not tormented by the worms and the fire.  In Mark 9:48, Jesus is quoting Isaiah 66:48, so based on that fact and the wealth of verses referring to the death and destruction of the unsaved, He is also referring to corpses. 

Does the imagery in these verses paint a picture of people living in torment forever, of people being refined for eternal life with God, or of people perishing?

When I was first shown what these verses were clearly saying, my mind was (pleasantly) blown.  This certainly sounded a lot more like God.  I was expecting to fight the Conditionalist view more, but I soon happily switched sides.  If, after you have read these verses, you find that the Conditionalist view makes better sense out of these verses, don’t be afraid to reconsider your view, too.”




It is important to note that the argument from the Biblical language of destruction is not the only argument for annihilationism.

Here's the proof (outlined in video form) about church fathers who were annihilationists [these are only the ones with the least disputable texts.  The Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the author of First and Second Clement (Clement?), all say annihilationist-sounding things, but those things are more disputably annihilationist]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je3AW6QeXzk&autoplay=1
Here's the list in the video: Ignatius of Antioch, Barnabas the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, Irenaeus of Lyons, Arnobius of Sicca, and Athanasius the Great.


tl;dr. Orthodoxy doesn't condemn anyone to everlasting torment per se.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 242


Apostle of Awkwardness


« Reply #100 on: September 18, 2013, 07:12:46 PM »

tl;dr. Orthodoxy doesn't condemn anyone to everlasting torment per se.

She just wrote the essay I gave a link to, and also gave the link that I previously gave the link to (about church fathers that are supposedly annihilationist).
Logged

.- -. -.. / --. --- -.. / ... .... .- .-.. .-.. / .-- .. .--. . / .- .-- .- -.-- / .- .-.. .-.. / - . .- .-. ... / ..-. .-. --- -- / - .... . .. .-. / . -.-- . ...
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #101 on: September 18, 2013, 07:43:30 PM »

tl;dr. Orthodoxy doesn't condemn anyone to everlasting torment per se.

She just wrote the essay I gave a link to, and also gave the link that I previously gave the link to (about church fathers that are supposedly annihilationist).

My CPU's temp is 117F.
Logged

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

Faith: Christianity
Jurisdiction: No Denomination
Posts: 30



« Reply #102 on: September 18, 2013, 07:54:49 PM »

My CPU's temp is 117F.

Sorry...?
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #103 on: September 18, 2013, 07:55:45 PM »


It's within spec. No need to worry.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,194



« Reply #104 on: September 18, 2013, 07:59:01 PM »

Ok, so your Seventh Day Adventist, I'm not sure what you want us to say...  Huh
Logged

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

Faith: Christianity
Jurisdiction: No Denomination
Posts: 30



« Reply #105 on: September 19, 2013, 04:53:12 PM »

Ok, so your Seventh Day Adventist, I'm not sure what you want us to say...  Huh

I am most definitely not a Seventh-Day Adventist.  Just because I believe in annihilationism doesn't mean I'm a Seventh-Day Adventist. That is only one doctrinal similarity.  If one can say that I'm a Seventh-Day Adventist just because I read the Bible and realized that it says God will destroy the wicked, then I can say you're a Muslim because you believe in only one God.
Logged
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,000


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #106 on: September 19, 2013, 05:34:54 PM »

You'd still be wrong by calling me a Muslim.
Logged

TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,194



« Reply #107 on: September 19, 2013, 08:23:19 PM »

Ok, so your Seventh Day Adventist, I'm not sure what you want us to say...  Huh

I am most definitely not a Seventh-Day Adventist.  Just because I believe in annihilationism doesn't mean I'm a Seventh-Day Adventist. That is only one doctrinal similarity.  If one can say that I'm a Seventh-Day Adventist just because I read the Bible and realized that it says God will destroy the wicked, then I can say you're a Muslim because you believe in only one God.
Sorry, it wasn't meant as an insult, but you were talking about monism and annihilationism, both of which are SDA positions and there are not many other denominations who push those other than them, so I just figured that was the perspective you were coming from.
Logged

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

Faith: Christianity
Jurisdiction: No Denomination
Posts: 30



« Reply #108 on: September 19, 2013, 10:36:05 PM »

You'd still be wrong by calling me a Muslim.

I know, I was just illustrating the point that one doctrinal similarity doesn't make me a specific religion or denomination.

Sorry, it wasn't meant as an insult, but you were talking about monism and annihilationism, both of which are SDA positions and there are not many other denominations who push those other than them, so I just figured that was the perspective you were coming from.

Yeah, it's just that people say that we're wrong a lot by saying that Seventh-Day Adventists believe the same thing, or that Buddhists believe extinction is heaven. Guilty by association stuff. Whenever people compare us to Seventh-Day Adventists in a discussion I kind of assume something like that is happening. Sorry.

I honestly didn't know SDAs were anthropological monists, too, though they aren't the only people who are AMs.  The Hebrews weren't monolithically monist or dualist. It's the same with the views of Hell. The Hebrews weren't monolithic with that, either, and neither were the early Christians. 

Ignatius of Antioch, Barnabas, Irenaeus of Lyons, Arnobius of Sicca, and Athanasius the Great were conditionalists/annihilationists, for example.   
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,194



« Reply #109 on: September 19, 2013, 10:39:42 PM »

You'd still be wrong by calling me a Muslim.

I know, I was just illustrating the point that one doctrinal similarity doesn't make me a specific religion or denomination.

Sorry, it wasn't meant as an insult, but you were talking about monism and annihilationism, both of which are SDA positions and there are not many other denominations who push those other than them, so I just figured that was the perspective you were coming from.

Yeah, it's just that people say that we're wrong a lot by saying that Seventh-Day Adventists believe the same thing, or that Buddhists believe extinction is heaven. Guilty by association stuff. Whenever people compare us to Seventh-Day Adventists in a discussion I kind of assume something like that is happening. Sorry.

I honestly didn't know SDAs were anthropological monists, too, though they aren't the only people who are AMs.  The Hebrews weren't monolithically monist or dualist. It's the same with the views of Hell. The Hebrews weren't monolithic with that, either, and neither were the early Christians. 

Ignatius of Antioch, Barnabas, Irenaeus of Lyons, Arnobius of Sicca, and Athanasius the Great were conditionalists/annihilationists, for example.   
Who is "us"?

I think it would be much more accurate to say each of them made statements that could be considered to be conditionalist/annihilationist. I watched the video and I would not say that the quotes put forth were a slam dunk for the position.  He focused on the term "immortality", but the way he interprets it is different than what I suspect the authors intended to convey.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #110 on: September 19, 2013, 10:40:53 PM »

You'd still be wrong by calling me a Muslim.

I know, I was just illustrating the point that one doctrinal similarity doesn't make me a specific religion or denomination.

Sorry, it wasn't meant as an insult, but you were talking about monism and annihilationism, both of which are SDA positions and there are not many other denominations who push those other than them, so I just figured that was the perspective you were coming from.

Yeah, it's just that people say that we're wrong a lot by saying that Seventh-Day Adventists believe the same thing, or that Buddhists believe extinction is heaven. Guilty by association stuff. Whenever people compare us to Seventh-Day Adventists in a discussion I kind of assume something like that is happening. Sorry.

I honestly didn't know SDAs were anthropological monists, too, though they aren't the only people who are AMs.  The Hebrews weren't monolithically monist or dualist. It's the same with the views of Hell. The Hebrews weren't monolithic with that, either, and neither were the early Christians. 

Ignatius of Antioch, Barnabas, Irenaeus of Lyons, Arnobius of Sicca, and Athanasius the Great were conditionalists/annihilationists, for example.   

No.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,194



« Reply #111 on: September 19, 2013, 10:53:12 PM »

I find the Irenaeus contention particularly amusing because right before the quote that the video posts, Irenaeus says this:

Quote
The Lord has taught with very great fulness, that souls not only continue to exist, not by passing from body to body, but that they preserve the same form [in their separate state] as the body had to which they were adapted, and that they remember the deeds which they did in this state of existence, and from which they have now ceased,—in that narrative which is recorded respecting the rich man and that Lazarus who found repose in the bosom of Abraham. In this account He states that Dives knew Lazarus after death, and Abraham in like manner, and that each one of these persons continued in his own proper position, and that [Dives] requested Lazarus to be sent to relieve himHe tells us] also of the answer given by Abraham, who was acquainted not only with what respected himself, but Dives also, and who enjoined those who did not wish to come into that place of torment to believe Moses and the prophets, and to receive the preaching of Him who was to rise again from the dead. By these things, then, it is plainly declared that souls continue to exist, that they do not pass from body to body, that they possess the form of a man, so that they may be recognised, and retain the memory of things in this world; moreover, that the gift of prophecy was possessed by Abraham, and that each class [of souls] receives a habitation such as it has deserved, even before the judgment.

That does not sound very conditionalist/annihilationist to me.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Muted
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #112 on: September 20, 2013, 05:24:33 AM »

tl;dr. Orthodoxy doesn't condemn anyone to everlasting torment per se.

She just wrote the essay I gave a link to, and also gave the link that I previously gave the linkto (about church fathers that are supposedly annihilationist).
Im gonna need the link so I can see a link about the previously link.
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Shiny
Site Supporter
Muted
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #113 on: September 20, 2013, 05:24:33 AM »

So I googled the OP and got this:

deviantART: More Like Gaslamp Fantasy Setting by ~AndItWorked
http://www.deviantart.com/morelikethis/213756340

LOL at the first result, LARP!!

But somehow I can't find the text google pulled up. That is a mystery.

Oh and Aeschere nice to meet you. I am pretty much the world's greatest internet private investigator.

If I ever come across as extremely creepy by posting stuff of yours 3 years later to cross reference you it's because I can search whatever I need to in a matter of seconds. I'm just that good.
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,000


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #114 on: September 20, 2013, 07:13:10 AM »

You'd still be wrong by calling me a Muslim.

I know, I was just illustrating the point that one doctrinal similarity doesn't make me a specific religion or denomination.

Sorry, it wasn't meant as an insult, but you were talking about monism and annihilationism, both of which are SDA positions and there are not many other denominations who push those other than them, so I just figured that was the perspective you were coming from.

Yeah, it's just that people say that we're wrong a lot by saying that Seventh-Day Adventists believe the same thing, or that Buddhists believe extinction is heaven. Guilty by association stuff. Whenever people compare us to Seventh-Day Adventists in a discussion I kind of assume something like that is happening. Sorry.

I honestly didn't know SDAs were anthropological monists, too, though they aren't the only people who are AMs.  The Hebrews weren't monolithically monist or dualist. It's the same with the views of Hell. The Hebrews weren't monolithic with that, either, and neither were the early Christians. 

Ignatius of Antioch, Barnabas, Irenaeus of Lyons, Arnobius of Sicca, and Athanasius the Great were conditionalists/annihilationists, for example.   

The OT Hebrews understood that all souls, righteous or evil, went to Sheol.  What do you mean by "monolithic"?
Logged

Aeschere
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christianity
Jurisdiction: No Denomination
Posts: 30



« Reply #115 on: September 20, 2013, 03:41:55 PM »

So I googled the OP and got this:

deviantART: More Like Gaslamp Fantasy Setting by ~AndItWorked
http://www.deviantart.com/morelikethis/213756340

LOL at the first result, LARP!!

But somehow I can't find the text google pulled up. That is a mystery.

Oh and Aeschere nice to meet you. I am pretty much the world's greatest internet private investigator.

If I ever come across as extremely creepy by posting stuff of yours 3 years later to cross reference you it's because I can search whatever I need to in a matter of seconds. I'm just that good.


Oh yes...that LARP thing.  I used to be in my school's LARP club because I thought it sounded fun, but we never actually did anything besides come up with settings. I eventually started D&D. 

Anyways, if you were looking for my essay, it was included in that really long reply of mine.
Logged
Aeschere
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christianity
Jurisdiction: No Denomination
Posts: 30



« Reply #116 on: September 20, 2013, 03:47:59 PM »

You'd still be wrong by calling me a Muslim.

I know, I was just illustrating the point that one doctrinal similarity doesn't make me a specific religion or denomination.

Sorry, it wasn't meant as an insult, but you were talking about monism and annihilationism, both of which are SDA positions and there are not many other denominations who push those other than them, so I just figured that was the perspective you were coming from.

Yeah, it's just that people say that we're wrong a lot by saying that Seventh-Day Adventists believe the same thing, or that Buddhists believe extinction is heaven. Guilty by association stuff. Whenever people compare us to Seventh-Day Adventists in a discussion I kind of assume something like that is happening. Sorry.

I honestly didn't know SDAs were anthropological monists, too, though they aren't the only people who are AMs.  The Hebrews weren't monolithically monist or dualist. It's the same with the views of Hell. The Hebrews weren't monolithic with that, either, and neither were the early Christians. 

Ignatius of Antioch, Barnabas, Irenaeus of Lyons, Arnobius of Sicca, and Athanasius the Great were conditionalists/annihilationists, for example.   
Who is "us"?

I think it would be much more accurate to say each of them made statements that could be considered to be conditionalist/annihilationist. I watched the video and I would not say that the quotes put forth were a slam dunk for the position.  He focused on the term "immortality", but the way he interprets it is different than what I suspect the authors intended to convey.

"Us" is the rest of the conditionalists and I.  I should probably say conditionalism instead of annihilationism, by the way.  Most or all or the conditionalists I see prefer to call themselves conditionalists instead of annihilationists. 

What do you think they meant by immortality?
Logged
Aeschere
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christianity
Jurisdiction: No Denomination
Posts: 30



« Reply #117 on: September 20, 2013, 04:00:31 PM »

You'd still be wrong by calling me a Muslim.

I know, I was just illustrating the point that one doctrinal similarity doesn't make me a specific religion or denomination.

Sorry, it wasn't meant as an insult, but you were talking about monism and annihilationism, both of which are SDA positions and there are not many other denominations who push those other than them, so I just figured that was the perspective you were coming from.

Yeah, it's just that people say that we're wrong a lot by saying that Seventh-Day Adventists believe the same thing, or that Buddhists believe extinction is heaven. Guilty by association stuff. Whenever people compare us to Seventh-Day Adventists in a discussion I kind of assume something like that is happening. Sorry.

I honestly didn't know SDAs were anthropological monists, too, though they aren't the only people who are AMs.  The Hebrews weren't monolithically monist or dualist. It's the same with the views of Hell. The Hebrews weren't monolithic with that, either, and neither were the early Christians. 

Ignatius of Antioch, Barnabas, Irenaeus of Lyons, Arnobius of Sicca, and Athanasius the Great were conditionalists/annihilationists, for example.   

The OT Hebrews understood that all souls, righteous or evil, went to Sheol.  What do you mean by "monolithic"?

I meant their view about what would eventually become of the wicked: eternal torment or eternal death (or something else). There were the Sadducees, who didn't believe in the afterlife and didn't believe in rewards or punishments after death. Then there were the Pharisees, who did believe in a resurrection. I heard some other, more strange things about them (about reincarnation and Jewish mysticism), but I'll have to confirm them first before I relate them to you. There were also other sects, but they aren't as famous and I haven't really heard much about them.

"Monolithic" here means practically every person in a group has view about a topic.
Logged
Aeschere
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christianity
Jurisdiction: No Denomination
Posts: 30



« Reply #118 on: September 20, 2013, 04:05:19 PM »

I find the Irenaeus contention particularly amusing because right before the quote that the video posts, Irenaeus says this:

Quote
The Lord has taught with very great fulness, that souls not only continue to exist, not by passing from body to body, but that they preserve the same form [in their separate state] as the body had to which they were adapted, and that they remember the deeds which they did in this state of existence, and from which they have now ceased,—in that narrative which is recorded respecting the rich man and that Lazarus who found repose in the bosom of Abraham. In this account He states that Dives knew Lazarus after death, and Abraham in like manner, and that each one of these persons continued in his own proper position, and that [Dives] requested Lazarus to be sent to relieve himHe tells us] also of the answer given by Abraham, who was acquainted not only with what respected himself, but Dives also, and who enjoined those who did not wish to come into that place of torment to believe Moses and the prophets, and to receive the preaching of Him who was to rise again from the dead. By these things, then, it is plainly declared that souls continue to exist, that they do not pass from body to body, that they possess the form of a man, so that they may be recognised, and retain the memory of things in this world; moreover, that the gift of prophecy was possessed by Abraham, and that each class [of souls] receives a habitation such as it has deserved, even before the judgment.

That does not sound very conditionalist/annihilationist to me.

The quotation you bolded doesn't seem to have anything to do with conditionalism, necessarily.  Just about the intermediate state.

There seems to be some confusion about what conditionalism is.  It's just the view that God will destroy the wicked after the final judgement, and their eternal punishment is everlasting death of the whole person. The reason it's called conditionalism is that their immortality is conditional on whether they're saved or not.
Logged
Aeschere
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christianity
Jurisdiction: No Denomination
Posts: 30



« Reply #119 on: September 20, 2013, 04:24:15 PM »

Oops, the reincarnation thing wasn't about Pharisees, never mind.
Logged
Nikolaos Greek
Last among equals
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Greece
Posts: 203



« Reply #120 on: September 20, 2013, 05:17:37 PM »

Destroy isn;t meant literally in those passages.
Logged

God is Love.
Ό Θεός ἀγάπη ἐστί.
There is no luck, there is no fate. There are always two ways. One is God's and one is devil's. And in each step of your life you have to pick one, always.
Aeschere
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christianity
Jurisdiction: No Denomination
Posts: 30



« Reply #121 on: September 20, 2013, 07:20:19 PM »

Destroy isn;t meant literally in those passages.

How did you come to that conclusion?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,603


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #122 on: September 22, 2013, 11:29:14 PM »

Hello!  I’m Didyma’s identical twin.  I joined this forum to cut out the middleman in our discussion.  I would prefer that we only discuss one of the topics my sister pointed out in the OP: Christian Anthropological Monism/Materialism/Physicalism, or Conditionalism/Annihilationism.  I’d rather not debate both at once.  It seems like the people here are mostly discussing annihilationism, and I’m newer to the Christian anthropological monism view, so I’m not as good at explaining it.  Therefore, I’d like to just discuss annihilationism, if that’s fine with you guys.  If you want, I’ll refer you to the podcasts that persuaded me to take on the CAM position, but I won’t be discussing them (not in this thread, at least).  (Don’t be surprised if I don’t start the CAM thread.  I’m pretty busy adjusting to college right now.)

I’m a little busy right now, so to start us off I’ll attempt to post my essay outlining the argument for annihilationism/conditionalism from the Biblical language of destruction that my sister posted earlier:

“As many Christians have noticed, one of the main issues non-Christians have with Christianity is the doctrine of the eternal conscious torment of the unsaved in Hell. The doctrine of ECT (as Eternal Conscious Torment will be called here on out) understandably clashes with most people’s sense of justice.  It clashes with mine, too. In fact, I’m sure that the vast majority of Christians have had at least some emotional distress when they thought about the traditional view of Hell.  Of course, just because something is emotionally displeasing doesn’t mean that it isn’t true, and which view of Hell is true is one of the most crucial things one can know.  Hell is too important for careless thinking and taking one’s own view for granted.  Christians must make sure whether such a major doctrine such as ECT aligns with the Bible.  If it doesn’t fit with Scripture, well, I’m sure God is very displeased His followers are saying such things about Him.  So, does the Bible really require us to believe that God will keep people alive in Hell forever just to suffer?
You do realize that, seeing the Scriptures as a product of the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church and the life of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit, we Orthodox don't believe in sola scriptura, as you appear to do? The Scriptures are truly foundational to our doctrines, but only when understood within their context as a product of the life of the Church.

I won’t beat around the bush any longer.  I don’t think so.  I’m a Conditionalist.  You may have heard of other views of Hell held by Christians besides the majority ECT one, which I will sometimes refer to as Traditionalism.  The largest alternative view of Hell is Universalism, also known as Universal Reconciliation.  Conditionalism, also known as Annihilationism or Conditional Immortality, is less famous (or infamous, I suppose) than Universalism.  Simply put, it holds that eternal life is a gift from God, so the unsaved just won’t live forever.  

A more detailed explanation of Conditionalism is that the unsaved will be resurrected, but unlike the saved, will not be gifted with immortality.  Instead, they will be punished with permanent destruction, which includes a certain degree of suffering during the destruction.  Though the amount and strength of the finite suffering that is involved in the destruction will vary person to person according to divine justice, all the unsaved will eventually cease to exist.  Though the suffering will be finite, the punishment (complete destruction) will be eternal, since there will be no coming back from oblivion after this Second Death.  

'Which verses support your view?' you are right to ask.  Before I tell you, however, I would like to point something out.  Many, or even most Christians are committed to the belief that the soul is either indestructible or will never be destroyed.  While this may not be the only factor that causes someone is a Traditionalist (or a Universalist, for that matter), it’s inevitable that this would affect what a Christian believes about Hell.  I would like any reader who holds this view about the human soul to at least acknowledge how this could affect how they take the defense of my view.  It is very likely that you have read the verses that I am about to quote many times over, but through a sort of ECT 'filter.'  I would therefore ask you to acknowledge this figurative filter, and to try to remove it, if possible, just for the sake of trying to understand my position.

Now, on to the scriptural support.  In this essay, I will focus on the Biblical language of destruction, since the argument for Conditional Immortality that is based on it is the most straightforward.
Do you think you may be following the same path most Protestants follow as regards your approach to the Scriptures? Look to the Scriptures as little more than a source text to support the development of your philosophies/doctrines?

John 3:16 is among the most quoted verses, and for good reason.  It very succinctly explains the gospel in a way that is easy to understand.  Since it is so commonplace, it is easy to miss important messages in the text.  'For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.'

I can’t think of a clearer way of saying it.  

'[...] whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.'
ISTM that you have defined "life" to be synonymous with "existence", such that eternal life means eternal existence. Is this the right way to define "life"?

I have heard the explanation that perishing can mean being apart from God.  And it does mean that.  People who don’t exist can certainly be considered apart from I Am.  But interpreting a word like “perish” in such a straightforward context as meaning 'Living forever (but in a horrifyingly painful place)' is simply bad hermeneutics.
How so?
« Last Edit: September 22, 2013, 11:29:50 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Aeschere
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christianity
Jurisdiction: No Denomination
Posts: 30



« Reply #123 on: September 23, 2013, 12:25:08 PM »

You do realize that, seeing the Scriptures as a product of the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church and the life of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit, we Orthodox don't believe in sola scriptura, as you appear to do? The Scriptures are truly foundational to our doctrines, but only when understood within their context as a product of the life of the Church.


My understanding is that the Eastern Orthodox Church is Prima Scriptura, which means that church doctrines cannot directly contradict scripture.  Is that correct?

Do you think you may be following the same path most Protestants follow as regards your approach to the Scriptures? Look to the Scriptures as little more than a source text to support the development of your philosophies/doctrines?

Why shouldn't I base my worldview in scripture? I'm a Christian, right?

ISTM that you have defined "life" to be synonymous with "existence", such that eternal life means eternal existence. Is this the right way to define "life"?

What does "ISTM" stand for? Anyway, I don't think I said that "life" means exactly the same thing as "existence." I said that life means life, and death means death (ceasing to live/ceasing to be conscious, able to make decisions, able to have emotions, growing, etc.)

I have heard the explanation that perishing can mean being apart from God.  And it does mean that.  People who don’t exist can certainly be considered apart from I Am.  But interpreting a word like “perish” in such a straightforward context as meaning 'Living forever (but in a horrifyingly painful place)' is simply bad hermeneutics.
How so?

The interpretation doesn't make sense for the word and its context. 

(Sorry if the quote formatting is weird.  I'm new to this kind of forum.)
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,194



« Reply #124 on: September 23, 2013, 01:08:29 PM »

I believe Prima Scriptura is a term that Anglicans use.

Orthodoxy hold that we follow Sacred Tradition.  Scripture is part of that Tradition, but so is hymnography, the icons, the patristic Fathers.  It all works in unison.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,603


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #125 on: September 23, 2013, 02:48:51 PM »

You do realize that, seeing the Scriptures as a product of the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church and the life of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit, we Orthodox don't believe in sola scriptura, as you appear to do? The Scriptures are truly foundational to our doctrines, but only when understood within their context as a product of the life of the Church.


My understanding is that the Eastern Orthodox Church is Prima Scriptura, which means that church doctrines cannot directly contradict scripture.  Is that correct?
We do indeed believe that Church doctrine cannot contradict Scripture, but that's not the definition of prima scriptura in that we also believe that one's interpretation of Scripture cannot contradict Church doctrines.

Do you think you may be following the same path most Protestants follow as regards your approach to the Scriptures? Look to the Scriptures as little more than a source text to support the development of your philosophies/doctrines?

Why shouldn't I base my worldview in scripture? I'm a Christian, right?
I'm not talking about basing your world view on Scripture. I'm talking about using Scripture as a source text for whatever philosophy you wish to construct. These two approaches are very different.

ISTM that you have defined "life" to be synonymous with "existence", such that eternal life means eternal existence. Is this the right way to define "life"?

What does "ISTM" stand for?
Internet acronym for "it seems to me"

Anyway, I don't think I said that "life" means exactly the same thing as "existence." I said that life means life, and death means death (ceasing to live/ceasing to be conscious, able to make decisions, able to have emotions, growing, etc.)
Recursive definitions are useless as anything but an exercise in tautology. A definition must use words other than the word you seek to define for it to be effective.

I have heard the explanation that perishing can mean being apart from God.  And it does mean that.  People who don’t exist can certainly be considered apart from I Am.  But interpreting a word like “perish” in such a straightforward context as meaning 'Living forever (but in a horrifyingly painful place)' is simply bad hermeneutics.
How so?

The interpretation doesn't make sense for the word and its context.  

(Sorry if the quote formatting is weird.  I'm new to this kind of forum.)
How, then, do you know that your hermeneutics are good?
« Last Edit: September 23, 2013, 02:51:51 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #126 on: September 23, 2013, 06:59:00 PM »

I said that life means life, and death means death (ceasing to live/ceasing to be conscious, able to make decisions, able to have emotions, growing, etc.)
Aeschere, welcome. Don't feel the need to reply to goading/trolling posts here.

Anyway, I don't think this is the ancient Near Eastern understanding of death, the understanding of death you often find used in the Old Testament, for example. My responses to Didyma start here, where I write about this:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,53583.msg987478.html#msg987478

The later-to-be-prodigal son was functioning/moving/rotting in the pigpen, but was not alive in the Christian sense.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2013, 07:00:01 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,603


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #127 on: September 23, 2013, 07:36:20 PM »

I said that life means life, and death means death (ceasing to live/ceasing to be conscious, able to make decisions, able to have emotions, growing, etc.)
Aeschere, welcome. Don't feel the need to reply to goading/trolling posts here.
Who's trolling? Huh Since you're quoting Aeschere's direct response to something I posted, I think it safe to suspect you may be talking about me. If so, I think it quite rude and presumptuous for you to insinuate that I'm trolling, since that's not at all what I'm here to do.
Logged
Nikolaos Greek
Last among equals
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Greece
Posts: 203



« Reply #128 on: September 24, 2013, 04:27:30 PM »

It is easy to udnerstand it.
Logged

God is Love.
Ό Θεός ἀγάπη ἐστί.
There is no luck, there is no fate. There are always two ways. One is God's and one is devil's. And in each step of your life you have to pick one, always.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #129 on: September 24, 2013, 04:30:30 PM »

So I googled the OP and got this:

deviantART: More Like Gaslamp Fantasy Setting by ~AndItWorked
http://www.deviantart.com/morelikethis/213756340

LOL at the first result, LARP!!

But somehow I can't find the text google pulled up. That is a mystery.

Oh and Aeschere nice to meet you. I am pretty much the world's greatest internet private investigator.

If I ever come across as extremely creepy by posting stuff of yours 3 years later to cross reference you it's because I can search whatever I need to in a matter of seconds. I'm just that good.


Oh yes...that LARP thing.  I used to be in my school's LARP club because I thought it sounded fun, but we never actually did anything besides come up with settings. I eventually started D&D. 

Anyways, if you were looking for my essay, it was included in that really long reply of mine.

Schools have clubs for this? Is this to make it easier for the bullies to locate who they need give a hard time?
Logged

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

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #130 on: September 24, 2013, 04:31:30 PM »

Recursive definitions are useless as anything but an exercise in tautology

I thought you were a computer programmer or something.
Logged

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

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #131 on: September 24, 2013, 04:33:36 PM »

I said that life means life, and death means death (ceasing to live/ceasing to be conscious, able to make decisions, able to have emotions, growing, etc.)
Aeschere, welcome. Don't feel the need to reply to goading/trolling posts here.

Anyway, I don't think this is the ancient Near Eastern understanding of death, the understanding of death you often find used in the Old Testament, for example. My responses to Didyma start here, where I write about this:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,53583.msg987478.html#msg987478

The later-to-be-prodigal son was functioning/moving/rotting in the pigpen, but was not alive in the Christian sense.

My car says otherwise.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #132 on: September 24, 2013, 07:44:53 PM »

I said that life means life, and death means death (ceasing to live/ceasing to be conscious, able to make decisions, able to have emotions, growing, etc.)
Aeschere, welcome. Don't feel the need to reply to goading/trolling posts here.
Who's trolling? Huh Since you're quoting Aeschere's direct response to something I posted, I think it safe to suspect you may be talking about me. If so, I think it quite rude and presumptuous for you to insinuate that I'm trolling, since that's not at all what I'm here to do.
I wouldn't call what you were doing trolling.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Aeschere
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christianity
Jurisdiction: No Denomination
Posts: 30



« Reply #133 on: September 25, 2013, 03:32:38 PM »

So I googled the OP and got this:

deviantART: More Like Gaslamp Fantasy Setting by ~AndItWorked
http://www.deviantart.com/morelikethis/213756340

LOL at the first result, LARP!!

But somehow I can't find the text google pulled up. That is a mystery.

Oh and Aeschere nice to meet you. I am pretty much the world's greatest internet private investigator.

If I ever come across as extremely creepy by posting stuff of yours 3 years later to cross reference you it's because I can search whatever I need to in a matter of seconds. I'm just that good.


Oh yes...that LARP thing.  I used to be in my school's LARP club because I thought it sounded fun, but we never actually did anything besides come up with settings. I eventually started D&D. 

Anyways, if you were looking for my essay, it was included in that really long reply of mine.

Schools have clubs for this? Is this to make it easier for the bullies to locate who they need give a hard time?

Our high school is the nerdiest school I know of.
Logged
Aeschere
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christianity
Jurisdiction: No Denomination
Posts: 30



« Reply #134 on: September 25, 2013, 03:32:58 PM »

It is easy to udnerstand it.

Understand what?
Logged
Aeschere
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christianity
Jurisdiction: No Denomination
Posts: 30



« Reply #135 on: September 25, 2013, 06:26:31 PM »

You do realize that, seeing the Scriptures as a product of the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church and the life of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit, we Orthodox don't believe in sola scriptura, as you appear to do? The Scriptures are truly foundational to our doctrines, but only when understood within their context as a product of the life of the Church.


My understanding is that the Eastern Orthodox Church is Prima Scriptura, which means that church doctrines cannot directly contradict scripture.  Is that correct?
We do indeed believe that Church doctrine cannot contradict Scripture, but that's not the definition of prima scriptura in that we also believe that one's interpretation of Scripture cannot contradict Church doctrines.
Yes. You need to be able to interpret scripture to understand what it says. If you don't know what scripture says, you can't know if it's contradicting anything.

Do you think you may be following the same path most Protestants follow as regards your approach to the Scriptures? Look to the Scriptures as little more than a source text to support the development of your philosophies/doctrines?
Why shouldn't I base my worldview in scripture? I'm a Christian, right?
I'm not talking about basing your world view on Scripture. I'm talking about using Scripture as a source text for whatever philosophy you wish to construct. These two approaches are very different.
...You seem to be suggesting that basing philosophies and doctrines off scripture is bad...

ISTM that you have defined "life" to be synonymous with "existence", such that eternal life means eternal existence. Is this the right way to define "life"?
I'm not sure whether death has to entail cessation of existence among the other qualifications, but I do know that life entails existence. I don't think that life is synonymous with existence, however.

Anyway, I don't think I said that "life" means exactly the same thing as "existence." I said that life means life, and death means death (ceasing to live/ceasing to be conscious, able to make decisions, able to have emotions, growing, etc.)
Recursive definitions are useless as anything but an exercise in tautology. A definition must use words other than the word you seek to define for it to be effective.
Life is consciousness, ability to grow, metabolize, have feelings, act, etc. Death means lack of consciousness, no ability to act or make decisions, having no feelings or mental capacity, no growth, no metabolism, etc. It may also include cessation of existence, but I'm not sure.  Either way, eternal conscious torment is out.

I have heard the explanation that perishing can mean being apart from God.  And it does mean that.  People who don’t exist can certainly be considered apart from I Am.  But interpreting a word like “perish” in such a straightforward context as meaning 'Living forever (but in a horrifyingly painful place)' is simply bad hermeneutics.
How so?

The interpretation doesn't make sense for the word and its context.  

(Sorry if the quote formatting is weird.  I'm new to this kind of forum.)
How, then, do you know that your hermeneutics are good?
Because it makes sense for the word and its context.
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,194



« Reply #136 on: September 25, 2013, 08:01:54 PM »

Essentially the argument is: There are thousands of different interpretations of Scripture, why should we believe yours over anyone elses?  For the Orthodox, it is simple, we don't trust yours or our own interpretation, we trust the interpretation of the Church which Christ established.  Christ never promised any one individual would not succumb to falsehood, but He did promise the Church would.  St. Paul never professed to be personally infallible even when he was writing Scripture, but he did profess the Church would be the pillar of truth.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #137 on: September 26, 2013, 01:27:56 AM »

Let's not let this potentially interesting thread get killed by the diversionary tactic of invoking "the Church's authority" over Scripture.

Aeschere is here to discuss conditionalism and annihilationism.

Annihilationism is definitely not an Orthodox doctrine.

As for conditional immortality, this gets hairy. I will take a closer look at the thread tomorrow.

Do Orthodox believe in the immortality of the lost? I would say that the implicit answer is a definite No.

I think there's a number of other questions that need to get asked before one can start asking about the ultimate fate of souls, but whaddya gonna do?

I hope this thread continues.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,603


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #138 on: September 26, 2013, 03:22:17 AM »

You do realize that, seeing the Scriptures as a product of the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church and the life of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit, we Orthodox don't believe in sola scriptura, as you appear to do? The Scriptures are truly foundational to our doctrines, but only when understood within their context as a product of the life of the Church.


My understanding is that the Eastern Orthodox Church is Prima Scriptura, which means that church doctrines cannot directly contradict scripture.  Is that correct?
We do indeed believe that Church doctrine cannot contradict Scripture, but that's not the definition of prima scriptura in that we also believe that one's interpretation of Scripture cannot contradict Church doctrines.
Yes. You need to be able to interpret scripture to understand what it says. If you don't know what scripture says, you can't know if it's contradicting anything.

Do you think you may be following the same path most Protestants follow as regards your approach to the Scriptures? Look to the Scriptures as little more than a source text to support the development of your philosophies/doctrines?
Why shouldn't I base my worldview in scripture? I'm a Christian, right?
I'm not talking about basing your world view on Scripture. I'm talking about using Scripture as a source text for whatever philosophy you wish to construct. These two approaches are very different.
...You seem to be suggesting that basing philosophies and doctrines off scripture is bad...
Do you not understand what I'm trying to communicate? If not, why not?

BTW, have you read this article from an interview with Dr. Ben Witherington? http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/november/23.66.html This gives the foundation for my question. It seems to me you're doing the same thing he criticized in this interview.

ISTM that you have defined "life" to be synonymous with "existence", such that eternal life means eternal existence. Is this the right way to define "life"?
I'm not sure whether death has to entail cessation of existence among the other qualifications, but I do know that life entails existence. I don't think that life is synonymous with existence, however.

Anyway, I don't think I said that "life" means exactly the same thing as "existence." I said that life means life, and death means death (ceasing to live/ceasing to be conscious, able to make decisions, able to have emotions, growing, etc.)
Recursive definitions are useless as anything but an exercise in tautology. A definition must use words other than the word you seek to define for it to be effective.
Life is consciousness, ability to grow, metabolize, have feelings, act, etc. Death means lack of consciousness, no ability to act or make decisions, having no feelings or mental capacity, no growth, no metabolism, etc. It may also include cessation of existence, but I'm not sure.  Either way, eternal conscious torment is out.
On what do you base your definition?

I have heard the explanation that perishing can mean being apart from God.  And it does mean that.  People who don’t exist can certainly be considered apart from I Am.  But interpreting a word like “perish” in such a straightforward context as meaning 'Living forever (but in a horrifyingly painful place)' is simply bad hermeneutics.
How so?

The interpretation doesn't make sense for the word and its context.  

(Sorry if the quote formatting is weird.  I'm new to this kind of forum.)
How, then, do you know that your hermeneutics are good?
Because it makes sense for the word and its context.
Makes sense to whom? It seems to me that you're engaging in some circular reasoning here.
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #139 on: September 26, 2013, 02:41:08 PM »

^^PtA, not only are you killing the discussion, but your objections are totally illogical.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,603


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #140 on: September 26, 2013, 02:48:33 PM »

^^PtA, not only are you killing the discussion,
Aeschere is answering my questions, so I would say your assessment needs some tweaking.

but your objections are totally illogical.
They're not meant to be logical. They're questions meant to help Aeschere articulate a more logical point of view.
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #141 on: September 26, 2013, 03:47:10 PM »

I suppose this goes around the Greek word apollymi, which has the root meaning of "utterly destroy," as in eternal destruction/perdition. Interestingly, it also has the meaning of "lose," e.g. to apololos probaton, "the lost sheep." The corresponding Latin word perdo has the same two meanings.

How are the two meanings connected?? I'm thinking of the English expression "we lost a man," being a circumlocuitous way of saying a man died.

Dow we have a Hebraeologist here?
Logged
Aeschere
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christianity
Jurisdiction: No Denomination
Posts: 30



« Reply #142 on: September 29, 2013, 04:07:43 PM »

You do realize that, seeing the Scriptures as a product of the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church and the life of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit, we Orthodox don't believe in sola scriptura, as you appear to do? The Scriptures are truly foundational to our doctrines, but only when understood within their context as a product of the life of the Church.


My understanding is that the Eastern Orthodox Church is Prima Scriptura, which means that church doctrines cannot directly contradict scripture.  Is that correct?
We do indeed believe that Church doctrine cannot contradict Scripture, but that's not the definition of prima scriptura in that we also believe that one's interpretation of Scripture cannot contradict Church doctrines.
Yes. You need to be able to interpret scripture to understand what it says. If you don't know what scripture says, you can't know if it's contradicting anything.

Do you think you may be following the same path most Protestants follow as regards your approach to the Scriptures? Look to the Scriptures as little more than a source text to support the development of your philosophies/doctrines?
Why shouldn't I base my worldview in scripture? I'm a Christian, right?
I'm not talking about basing your world view on Scripture. I'm talking about using Scripture as a source text for whatever philosophy you wish to construct. These two approaches are very different.
...You seem to be suggesting that basing philosophies and doctrines off scripture is bad...
Do you not understand what I'm trying to communicate? If not, why not?

BTW, have you read this article from an interview with Dr. Ben Witherington? http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/november/23.66.html This gives the foundation for my question. It seems to me you're doing the same thing he criticized in this interview.
I don't understand what you're trying to say.

ISTM that you have defined "life" to be synonymous with "existence", such that eternal life means eternal existence. Is this the right way to define "life"?
I'm not sure whether death has to entail cessation of existence among the other qualifications, but I do know that life entails existence. I don't think that life is synonymous with existence, however.

Anyway, I don't think I said that "life" means exactly the same thing as "existence." I said that life means life, and death means death (ceasing to live/ceasing to be conscious, able to make decisions, able to have emotions, growing, etc.)
Recursive definitions are useless as anything but an exercise in tautology. A definition must use words other than the word you seek to define for it to be effective.
Life is consciousness, ability to grow, metabolize, have feelings, act, etc. Death means lack of consciousness, no ability to act or make decisions, having no feelings or mental capacity, no growth, no metabolism, etc. It may also include cessation of existence, but I'm not sure.  Either way, eternal conscious torment is out.
On what do you base your definition?
Those were the standard definitions of "life" and "death." I don't really see the problem here...

I have heard the explanation that perishing can mean being apart from God.  And it does mean that.  People who don’t exist can certainly be considered apart from I Am.  But interpreting a word like “perish” in such a straightforward context as meaning 'Living forever (but in a horrifyingly painful place)' is simply bad hermeneutics.
How so?

The interpretation doesn't make sense for the word and its context.  

(Sorry if the quote formatting is weird.  I'm new to this kind of forum.)
How, then, do you know that your hermeneutics are good?
Because it makes sense for the word and its context.
Makes sense to whom? It seems to me that you're engaging in some circular reasoning here.
A hermeneutic is considered good if it takes into consideration context, the standard meaning of a word, other possible meanings of a word, and word usage. For the word meaning, biblewebapp.com is a good resource (except for in some instances, when it assumes eternal conscious torment)

For the context, the death of the wicked is contrasted (often in the same paragraph or even verse) with the eternal life of the saved. Furthermore, immortality/eternal life in scripture is portrayed as a gift of God to the righteous, and so the wicked would not have eternal life.  Also, the Biblical vision of eternity is one where sin and evil are no more, and everyone is united under Christ. How could that be if the wicked are living forever, separate from God? There is no real support of an eternal duality of horror and bliss in the Bible. Jesus' atoning death is another source of context. Jesus was a substitute for us, bearing our punishment on our behalf. What did he bear? Death. Isaiah 53:8-9 says that He was "cut off from the land of the living" and that "they made his grave with the wicked." Romans 5:6 says that "Christ died for our sins." 1 Peter 3:18 says that it was by physical death that Christ became our substitute. 
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,603


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #143 on: September 29, 2013, 04:45:47 PM »

You do realize that, seeing the Scriptures as a product of the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church and the life of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit, we Orthodox don't believe in sola scriptura, as you appear to do? The Scriptures are truly foundational to our doctrines, but only when understood within their context as a product of the life of the Church.


My understanding is that the Eastern Orthodox Church is Prima Scriptura, which means that church doctrines cannot directly contradict scripture.  Is that correct?
We do indeed believe that Church doctrine cannot contradict Scripture, but that's not the definition of prima scriptura in that we also believe that one's interpretation of Scripture cannot contradict Church doctrines.
Yes. You need to be able to interpret scripture to understand what it says. If you don't know what scripture says, you can't know if it's contradicting anything.

Do you think you may be following the same path most Protestants follow as regards your approach to the Scriptures? Look to the Scriptures as little more than a source text to support the development of your philosophies/doctrines?
Why shouldn't I base my worldview in scripture? I'm a Christian, right?
I'm not talking about basing your world view on Scripture. I'm talking about using Scripture as a source text for whatever philosophy you wish to construct. These two approaches are very different.
...You seem to be suggesting that basing philosophies and doctrines off scripture is bad...
Do you not understand what I'm trying to communicate? If not, why not?

BTW, have you read this article from an interview with Dr. Ben Witherington? http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/november/23.66.html This gives the foundation for my question. It seems to me you're doing the same thing he criticized in this interview.
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
What I'm saying is that you appear to have already crafted your world view without prior reference to the Scriptures and are only searching the Scriptures for texts that prove the world view you've already created.

ISTM that you have defined "life" to be synonymous with "existence", such that eternal life means eternal existence. Is this the right way to define "life"?
I'm not sure whether death has to entail cessation of existence among the other qualifications, but I do know that life entails existence. I don't think that life is synonymous with existence, however.

Anyway, I don't think I said that "life" means exactly the same thing as "existence." I said that life means life, and death means death (ceasing to live/ceasing to be conscious, able to make decisions, able to have emotions, growing, etc.)
Recursive definitions are useless as anything but an exercise in tautology. A definition must use words other than the word you seek to define for it to be effective.
Life is consciousness, ability to grow, metabolize, have feelings, act, etc. Death means lack of consciousness, no ability to act or make decisions, having no feelings or mental capacity, no growth, no metabolism, etc. It may also include cessation of existence, but I'm not sure.  Either way, eternal conscious torment is out.
On what do you base your definition?
Those were the standard definitions of "life" and "death." I don't really see the problem here...
"Standard"... What standard?

I have heard the explanation that perishing can mean being apart from God.  And it does mean that.  People who don’t exist can certainly be considered apart from I Am.  But interpreting a word like “perish” in such a straightforward context as meaning 'Living forever (but in a horrifyingly painful place)' is simply bad hermeneutics.
How so?

The interpretation doesn't make sense for the word and its context.  

(Sorry if the quote formatting is weird.  I'm new to this kind of forum.)
How, then, do you know that your hermeneutics are good?
Because it makes sense for the word and its context.
Makes sense to whom? It seems to me that you're engaging in some circular reasoning here.
A hermeneutic is considered good
Considered good by whom?

if it takes into consideration context, the standard meaning of a word, other possible meanings of a word, and word usage. For the word meaning, biblewebapp.com is a good resource (except for in some instances, when it assumes eternal conscious torment)

For the context, the death of the wicked is contrasted (often in the same paragraph or even verse) with the eternal life of the saved. Furthermore, immortality/eternal life in scripture is portrayed as a gift of God to the righteous, and so the wicked would not have eternal life.  Also, the Biblical vision of eternity is one where sin and evil are no more, and everyone is united under Christ. How could that be if the wicked are living forever, separate from God? There is no real support of an eternal duality of horror and bliss in the Bible. Jesus' atoning death is another source of context. Jesus was a substitute for us, bearing our punishment on our behalf. What did he bear? Death. Isaiah 53:8-9 says that He was "cut off from the land of the living" and that "they made his grave with the wicked." Romans 5:6 says that "Christ died for our sins." 1 Peter 3:18 says that it was by physical death that Christ became our substitute. 
Again, you do realize that your approach to the Scriptures is foreign to Orthodox Christianity?
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #144 on: October 01, 2013, 07:37:19 PM »

if it takes into consideration context, the standard meaning of a word, other possible meanings of a word, and word usage. For the word meaning, biblewebapp.com is a good resource (except for in some instances, when it assumes eternal conscious torment)

For the context, the death of the wicked is contrasted (often in the same paragraph or even verse) with the eternal life of the saved. Furthermore, immortality/eternal life in scripture is portrayed as a gift of God to the righteous, and so the wicked would not have eternal life.  Also, the Biblical vision of eternity is one where sin and evil are no more, and everyone is united under Christ. How could that be if the wicked are living forever, separate from God? There is no real support of an eternal duality of horror and bliss in the Bible. Jesus' atoning death is another source of context. Jesus was a substitute for us, bearing our punishment on our behalf. What did he bear? Death. Isaiah 53:8-9 says that He was "cut off from the land of the living" and that "they made his grave with the wicked." Romans 5:6 says that "Christ died for our sins." 1 Peter 3:18 says that it was by physical death that Christ became our substitute. 
Again, you do realize that your approach to the Scriptures is foreign to Orthodox Christianity?

Peter,

1) Can you articulate what an Orthodox approach to Scripture would actually entail in this situation?

2) Do you believe that her argument would be invalidated by being foreign to Orthodoxy?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,603


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #145 on: October 01, 2013, 07:45:08 PM »

if it takes into consideration context, the standard meaning of a word, other possible meanings of a word, and word usage. For the word meaning, biblewebapp.com is a good resource (except for in some instances, when it assumes eternal conscious torment)

For the context, the death of the wicked is contrasted (often in the same paragraph or even verse) with the eternal life of the saved. Furthermore, immortality/eternal life in scripture is portrayed as a gift of God to the righteous, and so the wicked would not have eternal life.  Also, the Biblical vision of eternity is one where sin and evil are no more, and everyone is united under Christ. How could that be if the wicked are living forever, separate from God? There is no real support of an eternal duality of horror and bliss in the Bible. Jesus' atoning death is another source of context. Jesus was a substitute for us, bearing our punishment on our behalf. What did he bear? Death. Isaiah 53:8-9 says that He was "cut off from the land of the living" and that "they made his grave with the wicked." Romans 5:6 says that "Christ died for our sins." 1 Peter 3:18 says that it was by physical death that Christ became our substitute.  
Again, you do realize that your approach to the Scriptures is foreign to Orthodox Christianity?

Peter,

1) Can you articulate what an Orthodox approach to Scripture would actually entail in this situation?

2) Do you believe that her argument would be invalidated by being foreign to Orthodoxy?
I hope she will ask her own questions to show that she really wants to know more. Right now she seems inclined to do nothing more than defend her point of view.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2013, 07:46:11 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #146 on: October 01, 2013, 11:44:58 PM »

if it takes into consideration context, the standard meaning of a word, other possible meanings of a word, and word usage. For the word meaning, biblewebapp.com is a good resource (except for in some instances, when it assumes eternal conscious torment)

For the context, the death of the wicked is contrasted (often in the same paragraph or even verse) with the eternal life of the saved. Furthermore, immortality/eternal life in scripture is portrayed as a gift of God to the righteous, and so the wicked would not have eternal life.  Also, the Biblical vision of eternity is one where sin and evil are no more, and everyone is united under Christ. How could that be if the wicked are living forever, separate from God? There is no real support of an eternal duality of horror and bliss in the Bible. Jesus' atoning death is another source of context. Jesus was a substitute for us, bearing our punishment on our behalf. What did he bear? Death. Isaiah 53:8-9 says that He was "cut off from the land of the living" and that "they made his grave with the wicked." Romans 5:6 says that "Christ died for our sins." 1 Peter 3:18 says that it was by physical death that Christ became our substitute.  
Again, you do realize that your approach to the Scriptures is foreign to Orthodox Christianity?

Peter,

1) Can you articulate what an Orthodox approach to Scripture would actually entail in this situation?

2) Do you believe that her argument would be invalidated by being foreign to Orthodoxy?
I hope she will ask her own questions to show that she really wants to know more. Right now she seems inclined to do nothing more than defend her point of view.

LOL! I'm sure you'd rather she wanted to defend your point of view instead!

Give me a break.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,603


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #147 on: October 02, 2013, 12:15:37 AM »

if it takes into consideration context, the standard meaning of a word, other possible meanings of a word, and word usage. For the word meaning, biblewebapp.com is a good resource (except for in some instances, when it assumes eternal conscious torment)

For the context, the death of the wicked is contrasted (often in the same paragraph or even verse) with the eternal life of the saved. Furthermore, immortality/eternal life in scripture is portrayed as a gift of God to the righteous, and so the wicked would not have eternal life.  Also, the Biblical vision of eternity is one where sin and evil are no more, and everyone is united under Christ. How could that be if the wicked are living forever, separate from God? There is no real support of an eternal duality of horror and bliss in the Bible. Jesus' atoning death is another source of context. Jesus was a substitute for us, bearing our punishment on our behalf. What did he bear? Death. Isaiah 53:8-9 says that He was "cut off from the land of the living" and that "they made his grave with the wicked." Romans 5:6 says that "Christ died for our sins." 1 Peter 3:18 says that it was by physical death that Christ became our substitute.  
Again, you do realize that your approach to the Scriptures is foreign to Orthodox Christianity?

Peter,

1) Can you articulate what an Orthodox approach to Scripture would actually entail in this situation?

2) Do you believe that her argument would be invalidated by being foreign to Orthodoxy?
I hope she will ask her own questions to show that she really wants to know more. Right now she seems inclined to do nothing more than defend her point of view.

LOL! I'm sure you'd rather she wanted to defend your point of view instead!
I know what I'm doing. You only think you know what I'm doing. Therefore, I'd like you to do me a favor and cease your peanut gallery comments long enough to see how Aeschere responds to my probing.

Give me a break.
Why? Do you have any special role in this discussion that I need to have your approval on everything I post here?
« Last Edit: October 02, 2013, 12:16:00 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #148 on: October 02, 2013, 12:21:18 AM »

Let's not let this potentially interesting thread get killed by the diversionary tactic of invoking "the Church's authority" over Scripture.

Aeschere is here to discuss conditionalism and annihilationism.

Annihilationism is definitely not an Orthodox doctrine.

As for conditional immortality, this gets hairy. I will take a closer look at the thread tomorrow.

Do Orthodox believe in the immortality of the lost? I would say that the implicit answer is a definite No.

I think there's a number of other questions that need to get asked before one can start asking about the ultimate fate of souls, but whaddya gonna do?

I hope this thread continues.

I am suing you for syntax infringement!
Logged

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

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #149 on: October 02, 2013, 12:23:57 AM »

For the Orthodox, it is simple, we don't trust yours or our own interpretation

It is simple, you trust your own. It's the only understand you can constitutionally trust. You literally have no recourse to any other understanding. This is something that grates around here and anyone who has reflected for a moment on understanding or taken a course or two beyond middle school would understand.

There is no interpretation of the Church as such.

For evidences: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/
« Last Edit: October 02, 2013, 12:31:14 AM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,244


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #150 on: October 02, 2013, 12:26:00 AM »

Give me a break.
Why? Do you have any special role in this discussion that I need to have your approval on everything I post here?

Last time I checked, voicing one's opinion wasn't against forum rules.   police  Rufus is entitled to have his say just as everyone else is.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2013, 12:27:25 AM by LBK » Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #151 on: October 02, 2013, 12:29:47 AM »

I suppose this goes around the Greek word apollymi, which has the root meaning of "utterly destroy," as in eternal destruction/perdition. Interestingly, it also has the meaning of "lose," e.g. to apololos probaton, "the lost sheep." The corresponding Latin word perdo has the same two meanings.

How are the two meanings connected?? I'm thinking of the English expression "we lost a man," being a circumlocuitous way of saying a man died.

Dow we have a Hebraeologist here?

A voice in the wilderness. I would interested in your expanding on your reasons for saying the Orthodox not believing in the immortality of the lost.

I think that phrasing could be understood in a number of way.

Only if you have the time and inclination of course! Not looking to argue here, as I am rather agnostic on the matter.
Logged

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

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #152 on: October 02, 2013, 12:30:50 AM »

Give me a break.
Why? Do you have any special role in this discussion that I need to have your approval on everything I post here?

Last time I checked, voicing one's opinion wasn't against forum rules.   police  Rufus is entitled to have his say just as everyone else is.

Wait for the strange loop . . .
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,603


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #153 on: October 02, 2013, 01:56:59 AM »

Give me a break.
Why? Do you have any special role in this discussion that I need to have your approval on everything I post here?

Last time I checked, voicing one's opinion wasn't against forum rules.   police  Rufus is entitled to have his say just as everyone else is.
Last time I checked, LBK, I am just as entitled to voice my opinion as Rufus is to voice his, even if he doesn't know what he's talking about.

So now I have to ask, LBK, don't you have something better to do than play Mrs. Moderator? I notice you haven't posted anything else to this thread. Maybe you would actually like to address the original topic of this discussion with something of substance.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2013, 03:54:57 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,603


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #154 on: October 02, 2013, 02:11:54 AM »

FWIW, I think this criticism of tactics off topic and irrelevant to the discussion. Rufus has in mind an approach he would like to implement--one I have never criticized, BTW. I have in mind a different approach I would like to implement. There's room for both approaches in this discussion. Ultimately, however, Aeschere's responses will dictate which approach works better, which is why I have asked Rufus to stop his pointless critique of my tactics in favor of just sitting back and watching how Aeschere responds. Who knows? Maybe my tactic won't work, and I'll be forced to try another. In the end, though, this will be determined by how Aeschere responds and not by some comments from a fellow who has no desire to know what I'm thinking.
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #155 on: October 02, 2013, 03:02:17 AM »

I suppose this goes around the Greek word apollymi, which has the root meaning of "utterly destroy," as in eternal destruction/perdition. Interestingly, it also has the meaning of "lose," e.g. to apololos probaton, "the lost sheep." The corresponding Latin word perdo has the same two meanings.

How are the two meanings connected?? I'm thinking of the English expression "we lost a man," being a circumlocuitous way of saying a man died.

Dow we have a Hebraeologist here?

A voice in the wilderness. I would interested in your expanding on your reasons for saying the Orthodox not believing in the immortality of the lost.

I think that phrasing could be understood in a number of way.

Only if you have the time and inclination of course! Not looking to argue here, as I am rather agnostic on the matter.

I think there is a double aspect to it. For one thing, death and destruction is definitely the fate of the lost, while eternal life is something reserved for the saved. For evidence, see all those places in the Bible that Aesch... has referenced. She makes a very convincing argument from Scripture.

Look at Orthodox liturgical texts. What is Holy Communion for? "Eternal life" for the partaker. The implication is that others are deprived of eternal life. Not once in any Orthodox text I have ever seen, including the Bible, does it speak of the lost as having life.

But we are not annihilationists: we believe that the torment is eternal. And I believe that this view* is scripturally warranted, even if it's never explicitly spelled out.

So eternal life is not merely eternal existence, nor is the destruction of the lost an annihilation. The problem is that this paradox canNOT be resolved  by contemporary popular anthropology, because we do not have a sufficiently refined understanding of what life and death are. So ultimately, this becomes an anthropological problem.

For about a decade now, I have been concerned that the latent anthropological beliefs people hold as well as certain metaphysical and logical notions have sucked us all into a death-spiral. How we are going to get out of it, I don't know. Christian theology will have to make some nifty moves in order to avoid being swallowed up by it.

Anyway, I hope you enjoyed my mental meanderings.


*EDIT: "this view" = eternal torment, as opposed to annihilation.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2013, 03:08:09 AM by Rufus » Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #156 on: October 02, 2013, 03:15:51 AM »

I suppose this goes around the Greek word apollymi, which has the root meaning of "utterly destroy," as in eternal destruction/perdition. Interestingly, it also has the meaning of "lose," e.g. to apololos probaton, "the lost sheep." The corresponding Latin word perdo has the same two meanings.

How are the two meanings connected?? I'm thinking of the English expression "we lost a man," being a circumlocuitous way of saying a man died.

Dow we have a Hebraeologist here?

I'm not one, but this seems relevant:

Quote from: Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary
ABADDON [Heb ʾăbaddôn (אֲבַדֹּון)]. Derived from Heb ʾābad, “became lost,” “be ruined, destroyed,” “perish,” Abaddon has a variety of nuanced meanings.

A poetic synonym for the abode of the dead, meaning “Destruction,” or “ (the place of) destruction.” Abaddon occurs in parallel and in conjunction with Sheol (Job 26:6 and Prov 15:11; 27:20). It is also found in conjunction with Death (Job 28:22) and in parallel with the grave (Ps 88:12—Eng 88:11). Although a place of mystery which is hidden from human eyes, Abaddon is clearly known by God (Job 26:6; Prov 15:11). It is twice personified: (1) along with Death, it speaks (Job 28:22); and (2) along with Sheol, it is insatiable (Prov 27:20). It is also remote: in Job 31:12, adultery becomes “a fire that consumes unto [as far as] Abaddon.” See also DEAD, ABODE OF THE.

In Rev 9:11, the word “Abaddon” is personified as “the angel of the bottomless pit.” It is also identified as the king of the demonic “locusts” described in Rev 9:3, 7–10, and is explained for Greek-speaking readers as Apollyon (Gk apollyōn), “destroyer.”
The LXX usually translates Heb ʾabaddon as Gk apōleia, “destruction”; the Vg renders it as Latin perditio, “ruin, destruction” (whence Eng “perdition,” which ordinarily means “hell”); in Syr (Peshitta), the cognate word means “destruction,” and is sometimes used in the Psalms to render “the Pit,” which is another OT synonym of Sheol.

In rabbinic literature, the word has come to mean the place of punishment reserved for the wicked. Current English versions render this word variously in the OT: “Abaddon,” “Destruction/destruction,” “the place of destruction,” “Perdition/perdition,” “the abyss,” “the world of the dead.” In the single NT occurrence, the word is consistently transliterated as “Abaddon.”

Luke 15:32 in Hebrew: akhikha zeh haya met vehine chazar lachayim, avad vehine nimtsa.

Aramaic (Peshitto): hono achukh mitho hwo wachyo, wavidho hwo weshtkach.

("This brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found.")

Lost sheep: tson 'ovdot (from the same root 'bd in Hebrew), but 'edhbe dt'aw in Syriac.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2013, 03:46:13 AM by Romaios » Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #157 on: October 02, 2013, 03:18:19 AM »

I suppose this goes around the Greek word apollymi, which has the root meaning of "utterly destroy," as in eternal destruction/perdition. Interestingly, it also has the meaning of "lose," e.g. to apololos probaton, "the lost sheep." The corresponding Latin word perdo has the same two meanings.

How are the two meanings connected?? I'm thinking of the English expression "we lost a man," being a circumlocutious way of saying a man died.

Dow we have a Hebraeologist here?

Norm, do you know if the 'Deg might be able to give us a clue here? even an indirect one?
Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #158 on: October 02, 2013, 03:32:08 AM »

Also, Fr. Pavel Florensky has a very interesting chapter (8 IIRC) on the Gehenna in The Pillar and Ground of the Truth: An Essay in Orthodox Theodicy in Twelve Letters.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2013, 04:02:37 AM by Romaios » Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #159 on: October 02, 2013, 07:36:08 AM »

Here it is (re-translated from Romanian, so excuse the clumsiness - especially that of the philosophical jargon):

Quote from: Fr. Pavel Florensky, The Pillar and Ground of the Truth: An Essay in Orthodox Theodicy in Twelve Letters, 8th Letter - The Gehenna
Definitive fates! But who ignores that nowadays a more or less vulgar origenism has crept into each soul, the secret conviction that God “will forgive eventually”? People of various conditions and extractions admit this so often, that one inadvertently begins to think “there is an imminent  core of truth to this”. The conscience starts from the idea of God as Love. Love cannot create in order to destroy, cannot build knowing that destruction will follow. Love cannot not forgive. Just as the rays of the all-victorious sun dispels mists, the brightness of God’s endless love dissipates any idea of retribution for His creature and all that pertains to it. From the vantage point of Eternity, everything is forgiven, everything is forgotten: May “God be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28). In short, the impossibility of universal salvation is impossible.     

This is what things look like from the loftiness of the idea of God. But if we consider the polar and conjugated perspective, starting not from God’s love for His creature, but from the creature’s love for God, the same conscience unavoidably reaches the opposite conclusion. Now the conscience cannot concede that there can be salvation without responding to God’s love. And, since one cannot admit that love could lack freedom, that the Father could force His creature to love Him, the imminent conclusion is this: it is possible that God’s love does not meet a corresponding response from His creature, therefore the impossibility of universal salvation is possible.
   
The thesis: the impossibility of universal salvation is impossible and the antithesis: the impossibility of universal salvation is possible constitute an obvious antinomy. As long as God’s love is acknowledged, the thesis is unavoidable; as long as the creature’s liberty is admitted as a logical consequence of the same love of God, the antithesis is also unavoidable. The idea of a Triune God as Essential Love related to the idea of creature is developed in the mutually exclusive terms of forgiveness and retribution, salvation and perdition, love and merit, Redeemer and Punisher, thus in aspects which – from a rational point of view – are as incompatible as trinity and unity in intra-divine life. This way rigorous monarchianism and temperate tritheism appeared in history.

If man’s liberty is the authentic freedom of self-determination, then forgiving ill will becomes impossible, since it is a deliberate product of this liberty. To not consider ill will as evil would be to deny the authenticity of freedom. But if liberty is not authentic, it follows that God’s love for His creature is not authentic either; if there is no real freedom for the creature, there is no real delimitation of the Godhead in the act of creation, there is no “emptying”, and thus no love. And if there is no love, there is no forgiveness.
 
To the contrary, if there is divine forgiveness, there is also divine love, and consequently the authentic liberty of the creature exists. If there is real freedom, its consequence is also imminent, namely the possibility of ill will and, consequently, the impossibility of forgiveness.

Denying the antithesis negates the thesis as well; affirming the antithesis affirms the thesis, and vice-versa. Thesis and antithesis are inseparable, like the object and its shadow. The antinomic character of the dogma of final destinies is obvious from the logical perspective. Actually not only from a logical point of view: it is obvious psychologically as well. The soul prays for the forgiveness of all, it yearns for universal salvation, it hopes “for the peace the entire world”. But, given the perverted and damned ill will, which chooses evil for the sake of evil, given the will which denies God for the sake of denial and hates Him just because He is Love, in short, given the cynicism, the “love of evil” and in E.A. Poe’s words, “the demon of perversity”, the soul curses the very forgiveness of God, it denies and refuses it. “Never do people do as much evil and with as much pleasure – says Pascal – as when they do it consciously.” Thus: “for these hell is already embraced and insatiable; they are already voluntary martyrs. They damned themselves by cursing God and cursing life. They feed on their own pride as one who is starving in the desert, who started drinking his own blood. But they are insatiable unto the ages of ages and they refuse to be forgiven by God, who calls them. They cannot contemplate the living God without enmity and they demand that the God of life exist no more, that God should annihilate Himself and destroy His creation. And they will forever be consumed by the fire of their rage, they will forever thirst for death and nothingness. And death they will not have…” This is what Elder Zosima says in Dostoevsky. It’s not God who refuses to be reconciled with His creature and to forgive an evil soul, filled with hatred, but the very soul would not be reconciled with God. To constrain him to be reconciled, to forcefully make him love God, He would have had to deprive him of liberty, that is He Himself should have stopped loving and started hating. But being Love, He abolishes nobody’s freedom, because “those who of their own will deny Him, He separated from Himself, granting them what they themselves have chosen.”     

God’s Love, from which one previously deduced the unavoidable character of forgiveness, now becomes an obstacle for it. If previously we demanded universal salvation, now we are “revolted” by it.

Within the limits of reason there is no solution to this aporia. The solution can only consist of the effective transformation of the reality itself, where the synthesis of thesis and antithesis is experienced as a fact, as a direct consequence of experience, relying for its justification on the Tri-hypostatic Truth. In other words, the synthesis can only be given definitively in the living out of the final destinies of the creature,  that is in the complete renewal of the world; before that, the synthesis is experienced in the Mysteries, where we are granted a personal regeneration (you understand what I mean).
« Last Edit: October 02, 2013, 08:00:26 AM by Romaios » Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #160 on: October 02, 2013, 07:46:14 AM »

Quote from: Fr. Pavel Florensky, The Pillar and Ground of the Truth: An Essay in Orthodox Theodicy in Twelve Letters, 8th Letter - The Gehenna
Being created by God, and therefore holy and having a certain intrinsic value in its core, the person has a free and creative will, which manifests itself as a system of actions, which is to say an empirical character. In this sense, the person is (a) character.

But a creature of God is a person and must be saved;  yet the wicked character is precisely what precludes the salvation of the person. Hence the clear conclusion is that salvation implies the separation of person and character, the individualization of both. What is one must become distinct. How so? Just as three is one in God, the One par excellence, the I (ego) is split: while remaining him/her-self, it also stops being him/her. Psychologically, this means that the ill will of man, which takes the forms of passions and a prideful character, is split from man himself, acquiring an independent and non-substantial situation in existence and, at the same time, being an absolute nothing “for another” (after the fashion of “you”, which is the metaphysical synthesis of “I” and “him” in the divided person). In other words, the “in oneself” of the person, being essentially holy  (according to the “he” paradigm), is split from its “for oneself” (according to the “I” paradigm), because the latter is wicked.   

The moments of one’s existence acquire an independent meaning, being split from one another, and my “for myself”, since it is evil, abandons my “in myself”, departing into “the outer darkness”, that is outside God, in the “impenetrable darkness” which lies “outside God”, where He “does not reach”, in the metaphysical place where there is no God. The Three-One is the Light of Love, where He is Existence; outside Him there is the darkness of hatred, and thus eternal annihilation. “The Trinity is the unshakable power” and the Ground of all stability. Denying the Most-Holy Trinity, apostasy and isolation from Her, cuts  aseity (this “in myself”) from its power source and condemns it to revolve around itself. For the Gehenna is the negation of the Trinitary dogma. It is not for nothing that at the core of the evil art of magic lies the denial of the trinitarian nature of the symbol “three”. I once happened to hear that a Father asked a wizard during confession how he does his craft; he admitted that he only said: “Three is not three, nine is not nine”.

The meaning of this blaspheming formula is clear: three is the sacred number of Truth, and nine – the same Trinity amplified, “potentialized” (at least this is its significance in symbolic arithmology) – is again a number of Truth. The Trinity is being refused its trinitarian nature, Nineness is being refused its character, that is the numbers of Truth are being refused that which makes them numbers of Truth, their veracity. Thus the spell of “Three is not three, nine is not nine” is an impotent attempt to demolish the “Pillar of Truth”, that is the affirmation of lie as Lie, of evil as Evil, ugliness as Ugly, that is Satan himself. For the essence of evil consists only of a negation of ομοούσιος. In the “outer darkness”, where my “for myself” is cast, that is my aseity, by my negation of ομοούσιος, by the obstinate repetition of “Three is not three, nine is not nine”, the aseity, separated from God, is simultaneously existence and nothingness. Malignant aseity, deprived of any objectivity (because the source of objectivity is the Light of God), becomes crude subjectivity, which exists and always retains its liberty, but only for itself, that is - a non-existent freedom. And my “in myself”, after a mysterious fission, turns into pure objectivity, always real, but only “for another”, to the extent to which it did not act for itself in loving aseity; therefore, being real “for another”, the “in oneself” is eternally real.           

The malignant and wicked “for oneself” is perpetual agony, a continual and impotent attempt at getting out of the state of nude aseity ( “for oneself” only) and therefore it endlessly burns in the inextinguishable fire of hatred. This is one of the aspects of the self perception of the evil creature, a living picture, frozen in its subject-less unreality. It is the void identity of the ego with the self, who cannot overcome the limits of the single, eternal moment of sin, torment and rage against God, against its own impotence, the one demential  εποχή extended into eternity. It is an endless effort, which only proves its own impotence, an impotence of making the effort. On earth, the εποχή still retains a creative character, but εποχή in the next world is utterly passive. On the other hand, good “in itself” is an always beautiful object of contemplation, a part of another, inasmuch as this other is good for himself also, thus being capable of contemplating in his turn the good of another. For he who loves transforms everything he loves in himself; but he who hates doesn’t even belong to himself: “whosoever will save his self/soul, shall lose it, and whosoever will lose his self/soul for My sake shall find it” (Mt. 10, 39; cf. Mt. 16, 25; Mk. 8, 35; Lk. 9, 24; 17, 33; Jn. 12, 25).
« Last Edit: October 02, 2013, 08:12:24 AM by Romaios » Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #161 on: October 02, 2013, 07:47:42 AM »

Romeo,

Are these your translations?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #162 on: October 02, 2013, 07:50:13 AM »

Quote from: Fr. Pavel Florensky, The Pillar and Ground of the Truth: An Essay in Orthodox Theodicy in Twelve Letters, 8th Letter - The Gehenna
The above is a mere rephrasing in ontological language of the “Parable of the talents”. The “talent” is the spiritual faculty with which God endows each human, to create his/her own person, or “the image of God”. In the case of “God’s image”, just as with capital, an effort is required for its multiplication. But the increase of capital depends on the scale of the proprietor’s action, so there is no point in providing him with capital which he will not use; the same is true of the soul: each has its own “increase rate” and therefore everyone is given the adequate spiritual capital. According to the vital development of God’s image which is incumbent on himself, according to his own “type” of spiritual growth and prosperity, everyone receives their talent from God: one is given a single talent, another two, another five – “to each according to his possibility or capacity” -  εκάστω κατά την ιδίαν δύναμιν (Mt. 25:15). Yet through His holy gift, God does not wish to constrain man, by imposing “heavy burdens, grievous to be borne” (Mt 23:4, Lk. 11:46).    

The one who received five talents gained another five; the one who got two – another two. But what do the words of this parable signify? If the talents are God’s image, how can man, by his own effort, by his own devices, increase his existence after God’s image, by doubling the same? It is self-evident that man cannot create it, but only double it, just as the vital force of the organism does not create its food, but only assimilates it. Man does not increase his person, he has no δύναμις for this, but he assumes it by receiving in himself God’s image from the other people. Love – here is that δύναμις through which everyone is enriched and increases, by absorbing another.  How? By giving itself to another. But man only receives as much as he gives of himself; and, when he completely gives himself in love, he receives himself back, but grounded, affirmed, deepened in the other, that is he doubles his existence. Thus, he who got five talents, added as many to them, he who got two added another two, no more, no less (Mt. 25:16-17).  

This doubling of the self is “being faithful over a few things” (επί ολίγα ης πιστός - Mt. 25:21-23), over that which each was granted, over the piece of the Celestial Jerusalem which was given to each for safekeeping. But it’s not just his own joy that awaits the “good and faithful servant”; this great and infinite joy would be but a small and insignificant droplet as compared to the infinite ocean of spiritual joy which is prepared for the faithful servant by “the depth of the riches of the wisdom and the knowledge of God” (Romans 11:33). What awaits him is “entering in the joy of his Lord” (είσελθε εις την χαράν του κυρίου σου - Mt. 25:23), that is sharing the divine beatitude, the joy of the Trinity for the perfection of the Lord’s entire work, resting with God’s rest, which He enjoyed after accomplishing by His grace the creation of the world.  

But joy is only accessible to the one who is aware of his own person, who has worked, that is to the servant who is “faithful over few things”. The one who did not ground his person, who did not earn what was given to him, is blinded by the brightness of the Tri-hypostatic Godhead, he chokes on  the odour of heavenly incense, is deafened by the praises of the heavenly hosts. Such a man cannot bear the face of God, he flees the All-seeing and rejects His immortal gifts. Thus, the servant of the parable who got one talent and did nothing to increase it, that is he added nothing to what was given to him by his own effort, tells his master: “Lord, I knew thee that thou art a hard man, reaping where thou didst not sow, and gathering where thou didst not scatter; and I was afraid, and went away and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, thou hast thine own!” (Mt. 25, 24-25). Hatred for the good master rings in these words; with scorn and pride the servant rejects the precious gift he was given. He wants to be “on his own”. And then, granting the wicked and slothful servant his wish, wicked as it might be, but eternally free by God’s mercy, the Master commands the talent which he refused to be taken from him and to be given to the one who has ten talents, “for unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away”  (Mt. 25, 29; cf. Mt. 13, 12; Mc. 4, 25; Lk. 8, 18; 19, 26). If man is slothful and negligent of his spiritual work and wickedly seeks reassurance, justifying his sloth by burying in himself God’s image which he possesses; if, when asked about the same image, he rushes to scornfully reject it, then what he refused is confiscated. But for the sin of one man who refused, God does not punish the entire creation, depriving it of His gift. The rejected divine image ceases to exist only for him who rejected it, not absolutely. The innocent, who entered in the joy of their Lord, rejoicing in every divine image He ever created, receive God in this joy, also assimilating this rejected gift of God; the wicked servant is excluded from the joy of his Master, he isolates himself outside Him, in that which is outside God, “in the outer darkness” (Mt. 25:30)  
« Last Edit: October 02, 2013, 07:51:55 AM by Romaios » Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #163 on: October 02, 2013, 07:51:02 AM »

Romeo,

Are these your translations?

Yup, they are. 
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #164 on: October 02, 2013, 07:53:49 AM »

Romeo,

Are these your translations?

Yup, they are. 

Just cause I want to feel inferior, do you have lying around in translation or are just do this translation on fly?

I hope it is former and you are cutting and pasting.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #165 on: October 02, 2013, 07:56:41 AM »

Romeo,

Are these your translations?

Yup, they are. 

Just cause I want to feel inferior, do you have lying around in translation or are just do this translation on fly?

I hope it is former and you are cutting and pasting.

It's the latter - I've been cropping this up for the past couple of hours or so.  Embarrassed

I had the Romanian text in digital format, so that made it easier.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2013, 08:00:54 AM by Romaios » Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,194



« Reply #166 on: October 02, 2013, 07:58:59 AM »

Romaios is the biggest badass on the internet.  Who else translates old Church texts for an internet forum debate?

*crawls in hole and bemoans wasted life*
« Last Edit: October 02, 2013, 07:59:14 AM by TheTrisagion » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #167 on: October 02, 2013, 08:05:59 AM »

Romaios is the biggest badass on the internet.  Who else translates old Church texts for an internet forum debate?

*crawls in hole and bemoans wasted life*

You'd have to be bored and, literally, have no other talent.

Life can be wasted in innumerable ways - this is just my own.  Wink

Actually, I translated these bits because of the content, not to harvest praises. But I'd be a hypocrite not to admit that some appreciation is always nice.  Tongue
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,194



« Reply #168 on: October 02, 2013, 08:09:18 AM »

Romaios is the biggest badass on the internet.  Who else translates old Church texts for an internet forum debate?

*crawls in hole and bemoans wasted life*

You'd have to be bored and, literally, have no other talent.

Life can be wasted in innumerable ways - this is just my own.  Wink

Actually, I translated these bits because of the content, not to harvest praises. But I'd be a hypocrite not to admit that some appreciation is always nice.  Tongue

I know.  That is what makes it all the more badass.
Logged

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

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #169 on: October 02, 2013, 08:11:32 AM »

Romeo,

Are these your translations?

Yup, they are. 

Just cause I want to feel inferior, do you have lying around in translation or are just do this translation on fly?

I hope it is former and you are cutting and pasting.

It's the latter - I've been cropping this up for the past couple of hours or so.  Embarrassed

I had the Romanian text in digital format, so that made it easier.

Interesting. I'll stop the pointless questions centered around my self-loathing.

Thanks.

If you and / or Cyrilic ever decide to redo the travesty committed by Pearse, let me know.
Logged

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

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #170 on: October 02, 2013, 08:14:00 AM »

Actually, I translated these bits because of the content, not to harvest praises.

Get over yourself, this is about me hating myself thus being closer to being Godlike.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,194



« Reply #171 on: October 02, 2013, 08:16:14 AM »

Actually, I translated these bits because of the content, not to harvest praises.

Get over yourself, this is about me hating myself thus being closer to being Godlike.
I can see theosis setting in already.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #172 on: October 02, 2013, 09:06:27 AM »

If you and / or Cyrilic ever decide to redo the travesty committed by Pearse, let me know.

You mean the Aeneid? I haven't tried my hand at poetry since 7th grade or so, but sure, why not?

We'll dedicate our version to Achronos.  laugh
« Last Edit: October 02, 2013, 09:35:50 AM by Romaios » Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #173 on: October 02, 2013, 09:07:20 AM »

Actually, I translated these bits because of the content, not to harvest praises.

Get over yourself.

Easier said than done...
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #174 on: October 02, 2013, 09:16:17 AM »

If you and / or Cyrilic ever decide to redo the travesty committed by Pearse, let me know.

You mean the Aeneid? I haven't tried my hand at poetry since 7th grade or so, but sure, why not?

We'll dedicate our version to Achronos.  laugh

No that unreadable English translation of the "Early Church Fathers":

http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #175 on: October 02, 2013, 09:29:42 AM »

No that unreadable English translation of the "Early Church Fathers":

http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html

I thought there were dozens of translations of those in English already.  Huh
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,603


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #176 on: October 02, 2013, 09:34:07 AM »

Back on topic, everyone.
Logged
Aeschere
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christianity
Jurisdiction: No Denomination
Posts: 30



« Reply #177 on: October 02, 2013, 11:36:37 AM »

Wow, there's been a lot of replies since I last checked in.  Was I really gone that long?
Logged
Aeschere
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christianity
Jurisdiction: No Denomination
Posts: 30



« Reply #178 on: October 02, 2013, 12:18:22 PM »

You do realize that, seeing the Scriptures as a product of the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church and the life of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit, we Orthodox don't believe in sola scriptura, as you appear to do? The Scriptures are truly foundational to our doctrines, but only when understood within their context as a product of the life of the Church.


My understanding is that the Eastern Orthodox Church is Prima Scriptura, which means that church doctrines cannot directly contradict scripture.  Is that correct?
We do indeed believe that Church doctrine cannot contradict Scripture, but that's not the definition of prima scriptura in that we also believe that one's interpretation of Scripture cannot contradict Church doctrines.
Yes. You need to be able to interpret scripture to understand what it says. If you don't know what scripture says, you can't know if it's contradicting anything.

Do you think you may be following the same path most Protestants follow as regards your approach to the Scriptures? Look to the Scriptures as little more than a source text to support the development of your philosophies/doctrines?
Why shouldn't I base my worldview in scripture? I'm a Christian, right?
I'm not talking about basing your world view on Scripture. I'm talking about using Scripture as a source text for whatever philosophy you wish to construct. These two approaches are very different.
...You seem to be suggesting that basing philosophies and doctrines off scripture is bad...
Do you not understand what I'm trying to communicate? If not, why not?

BTW, have you read this article from an interview with Dr. Ben Witherington? http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/november/23.66.html This gives the foundation for my question. It seems to me you're doing the same thing he criticized in this interview.
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
What I'm saying is that you appear to have already crafted your world view without prior reference to the Scriptures and are only searching the Scriptures for texts that prove the world view you've already created.
Two can play at this game, though for now I'll just ask you why you think I'm an eisegete. 

Scripture says that eternal life is a gift of God only for the righteous, and though I'll agree that scripture doesn't say that eternal life is only eternal existence (it's also communion with God, etc.), it doesn't follow that death is therefore only figurative.  Even though the Bible sometimes compares those without God to the dead, it doesn't follow that therefore their final punishment (the second death) is the same as their state now (separation from God/spiritual death). If it were like that, then why would it be called the "Second Death"? Did they rise to spiritual life and get to know God in between deaths? Furthermore, according to that view, their spiritual death started before their actual first death, so not only is the final punishment not a second death like the Bible says, it actually started before the first death!

ISTM that you have defined "life" to be synonymous with "existence", such that eternal life means eternal existence. Is this the right way to define "life"?
I'm not sure whether death has to entail cessation of existence among the other qualifications, but I do know that life entails existence. I don't think that life is synonymous with existence, however.

Anyway, I don't think I said that "life" means exactly the same thing as "existence." I said that life means life, and death means death (ceasing to live/ceasing to be conscious, able to make decisions, able to have emotions, growing, etc.)
Recursive definitions are useless as anything but an exercise in tautology. A definition must use words other than the word you seek to define for it to be effective.
Life is consciousness, ability to grow, metabolize, have feelings, act, etc. Death means lack of consciousness, no ability to act or make decisions, having no feelings or mental capacity, no growth, no metabolism, etc. It may also include cessation of existence, but I'm not sure.  Either way, eternal conscious torment is out.
On what do you base your definition?
Those were the standard definitions of "life" and "death." I don't really see the problem here...
"Standard"... What standard?
Languages have standard meanings of words, or else it would be impossible to communicate.  If you said "I would like a banana," I could think that you meant "That ship is a barquentine," without being considered insane.

I have heard the explanation that perishing can mean being apart from God.  And it does mean that.  People who don’t exist can certainly be considered apart from I Am.  But interpreting a word like “perish” in such a straightforward context as meaning 'Living forever (but in a horrifyingly painful place)' is simply bad hermeneutics.
How so?

The interpretation doesn't make sense for the word and its context.  

(Sorry if the quote formatting is weird.  I'm new to this kind of forum.)
How, then, do you know that your hermeneutics are good?
Because it makes sense for the word and its context.
Makes sense to whom? It seems to me that you're engaging in some circular reasoning here.
A hermeneutic is considered good
Considered good by whom?
By those who have knowledge about the scriptures and how to interpret them (theologians, Biblical scholars, etc.).

What's wrong with looking at a text's context and the meaning of the words that are used in it? That's literally how we understand each other in day to day life. 

if it takes into consideration context, the standard meaning of a word, other possible meanings of a word, and word usage. For the word meaning, biblewebapp.com is a good resource (except for in some instances, when it assumes eternal conscious torment)

For the context, the death of the wicked is contrasted (often in the same paragraph or even verse) with the eternal life of the saved. Furthermore, immortality/eternal life in scripture is portrayed as a gift of God to the righteous, and so the wicked would not have eternal life.  Also, the Biblical vision of eternity is one where sin and evil are no more, and everyone is united under Christ. How could that be if the wicked are living forever, separate from God? There is no real support of an eternal duality of horror and bliss in the Bible. Jesus' atoning death is another source of context. Jesus was a substitute for us, bearing our punishment on our behalf. What did he bear? Death. Isaiah 53:8-9 says that He was "cut off from the land of the living" and that "they made his grave with the wicked." Romans 5:6 says that "Christ died for our sins." 1 Peter 3:18 says that it was by physical death that Christ became our substitute. 
Again, you do realize that your approach to the Scriptures is foreign to Orthodox Christianity?
So you don't consider context and word meanings when you read the Bible? Eh?
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #179 on: October 02, 2013, 12:44:05 PM »

Scripture says that eternal life is a gift of God only for the righteous, and though I'll agree that scripture doesn't say that eternal life is only eternal existence (it's also communion with God, etc.), it doesn't follow that death is therefore only figurative.  Even though the Bible sometimes compares those without God to the dead, it doesn't follow that therefore their final punishment (the second death) is the same as their state now (separation from God/spiritual death). If it were like that, then why would it be called the "Second Death"? Did they rise to spiritual life and get to know God in between deaths? Furthermore, according to that view, their spiritual death started before their actual first death, so not only is the final punishment not a second death like the Bible says, it actually started before the first death!

Do you buy into the distinction between physical and spiritual death?

Quote
Again, you do realize that your approach to the Scriptures is foreign to Orthodox Christianity?
So you don't consider context and word meanings when you read the Bible? Eh?

The Odox have some of the weirdest hermeneutics you could ever encounter--brace yourself.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,603


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #180 on: October 02, 2013, 01:28:38 PM »

What I'm saying is that you appear to have already crafted your world view without prior reference to the Scriptures and are only searching the Scriptures for texts that prove the world view you've already created.
Two can play at this game, though for now I'll just ask you why you think I'm an eisegete.
Because it seems that you're ignoring the message in Matthew 25 and in Revelation 20:11-15 in your efforts to make the message of the Bible fit your definitions of the words "life" and "death".

Languages have standard meanings of words, or else it would be impossible to communicate.
And words often have multiple meanings, which often does make it impossible to communicate. You're choosing only one definition of "life" and one definition of "death", making your chosen definitions the "standard" definitions, and rejecting the rest. Then you try to make the language of the Scriptures fit the definitions you have arbitrarily declared "standard".

Need I mention that you're also working with only the English translations of the Scriptures? The Apostles didn't write in English, so they may not have been thinking in terms of the "standard" English definitions of "life" and "death", if there even are such standard definitions. If you really want to conduct an analysis of the text, you should be working with the original Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew texts of the Bible and not with the English translations where the original meanings of words invariably gets lost at times. If you don't want to conduct your own analysis, then maybe you should trust "scholars and theologians" other than those who believe that Christianity was rediscovered in 1517.

A hermeneutic is considered good
Considered good by whom?
By those who have knowledge about the scriptures and how to interpret them (theologians, Biblical scholars, etc.).
This is, in essence, an argument from authority. How do you know that the authorities you choose to trust are actually worthy of trust?

What's wrong with looking at a text's context and the meaning of the words that are used in it? That's literally how we understand each other in day to day life.
And yet we so often misunderstand each other, do we not?

How is it that Protestants look at a text's context and the meanings of the words used therein and still come up with half a million different, often conflicting interpretations of the message?

if it takes into consideration context, the standard meaning of a word, other possible meanings of a word, and word usage. For the word meaning, biblewebapp.com is a good resource (except for in some instances, when it assumes eternal conscious torment)

For the context, the death of the wicked is contrasted (often in the same paragraph or even verse) with the eternal life of the saved. Furthermore, immortality/eternal life in scripture is portrayed as a gift of God to the righteous, and so the wicked would not have eternal life.  Also, the Biblical vision of eternity is one where sin and evil are no more, and everyone is united under Christ. How could that be if the wicked are living forever, separate from God? There is no real support of an eternal duality of horror and bliss in the Bible. Jesus' atoning death is another source of context. Jesus was a substitute for us, bearing our punishment on our behalf. What did he bear? Death. Isaiah 53:8-9 says that He was "cut off from the land of the living" and that "they made his grave with the wicked." Romans 5:6 says that "Christ died for our sins." 1 Peter 3:18 says that it was by physical death that Christ became our substitute.  
Again, you do realize that your approach to the Scriptures is foreign to Orthodox Christianity?
So you don't consider context and word meanings when you read the Bible? Eh?
We consider that doctrine that has been taught by men who have been taught by men who have been taught by men who have been taught by men who have been taught... going back far enough ...by the holy Apostles themselves. We also trust that this transmission of the Gospel from one generation to the next has been kept pure by the unchanging Holy Spirit. What better way is there to discern what the Apostles originally wanted us to know about Jesus Christ and our salvation then to learn from these men?
« Last Edit: October 02, 2013, 01:53:20 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,244


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #181 on: October 03, 2013, 11:30:16 PM »

Give me a break.
Why? Do you have any special role in this discussion that I need to have your approval on everything I post here?

Last time I checked, voicing one's opinion wasn't against forum rules.   police  Rufus is entitled to have his say just as everyone else is.
Last time I checked, LBK, I am just as entitled to voice my opinion as Rufus is to voice his, even if he doesn't know what he's talking about.

So now I have to ask, LBK, don't you have something better to do than play Mrs. Moderator? I notice you haven't posted anything else to this thread. Maybe you would actually like to address the original topic of this discussion with something of substance.

1.   My silence is due to my computer having crashed two days ago. I am posting from my local library.

2.   You responded in a snarky way to Rufus, where he had simply voiced his view, as everyone on this forum is entitled to do.  Isn’t that what forums are about? Or do we all need approval from you before we post?

Logged
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #182 on: October 03, 2013, 11:37:42 PM »

PtA flexes his mod muscles? Never!...
« Last Edit: October 03, 2013, 11:38:00 PM by PoorFoolNicholas » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,603


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #183 on: October 04, 2013, 12:34:34 AM »

Give me a break.
Why? Do you have any special role in this discussion that I need to have your approval on everything I post here?

Last time I checked, voicing one's opinion wasn't against forum rules.   police  Rufus is entitled to have his say just as everyone else is.
Last time I checked, LBK, I am just as entitled to voice my opinion as Rufus is to voice his, even if he doesn't know what he's talking about.

So now I have to ask, LBK, don't you have something better to do than play Mrs. Moderator? I notice you haven't posted anything else to this thread. Maybe you would actually like to address the original topic of this discussion with something of substance.

1.   My silence is due to my computer having crashed two days ago. I am posting from my local library.

2.   You responded in a snarky way to Rufus, where he had simply voiced his view, as everyone on this forum is entitled to do.  Isn’t that what forums are about? Or do we all need approval from you before we post?
LBK, the only two posts you have submitted to this thread have been to chastise me. Are you going to ever address the OP? That is, after all, what forums are about.
Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,244


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #184 on: October 04, 2013, 12:38:38 AM »


Give me a break.
Why? Do you have any special role in this discussion that I need to have your approval on everything I post here?

Last time I checked, voicing one's opinion wasn't against forum rules.   police  Rufus is entitled to have his say just as everyone else is.
Last time I checked, LBK, I am just as entitled to voice my opinion as Rufus is to voice his, even if he doesn't know what he's talking about.

So now I have to ask, LBK, don't you have something better to do than play Mrs. Moderator? I notice you haven't posted anything else to this thread. Maybe you would actually like to address the original topic of this discussion with something of substance.

1.   My silence is due to my computer having crashed two days ago. I am posting from my local library.

2.   You responded in a snarky way to Rufus, where he had simply voiced his view, as everyone on this forum is entitled to do.  Isn’t that what forums are about? Or do we all need approval from you before we post?
LBK, the only two posts you have submitted to this thread have been to chastise me. Are you going to ever address the OP? That is, after all, what forums are about.
What of your post chastising Rufus for voicing his opinion? What's sauce for the goose ...
Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,244


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #185 on: October 04, 2013, 12:52:55 AM »


Give me a break.
Why? Do you have any special role in this discussion that I need to have your approval on everything I post here?

Last time I checked, voicing one's opinion wasn't against forum rules.   police  Rufus is entitled to have his say just as everyone else is.
Last time I checked, LBK, I am just as entitled to voice my opinion as Rufus is to voice his, even if he doesn't know what he's talking about.

So now I have to ask, LBK, don't you have something better to do than play Mrs. Moderator? I notice you haven't posted anything else to this thread. Maybe you would actually like to address the original topic of this discussion with something of substance.

1.   My silence is due to my computer having crashed two days ago. I am posting from my local library.

2.   You responded in a snarky way to Rufus, where he had simply voiced his view, as everyone on this forum is entitled to do.  Isn’t that what forums are about? Or do we all need approval from you before we post?
LBK, the only two posts you have submitted to this thread have been to chastise me. Are you going to ever address the OP? That is, after all, what forums are about.
What of your post chastising Rufus for voicing his opinion? What's sauce for the goose ...

.... I am also permitted to read threads without necessarily posting in them, am I not? I believe this is known in netspeak as "lurking".
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,603


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #186 on: October 04, 2013, 01:18:15 AM »


Give me a break.
Why? Do you have any special role in this discussion that I need to have your approval on everything I post here?

Last time I checked, voicing one's opinion wasn't against forum rules.   police  Rufus is entitled to have his say just as everyone else is.
Last time I checked, LBK, I am just as entitled to voice my opinion as Rufus is to voice his, even if he doesn't know what he's talking about.

So now I have to ask, LBK, don't you have something better to do than play Mrs. Moderator? I notice you haven't posted anything else to this thread. Maybe you would actually like to address the original topic of this discussion with something of substance.

1.   My silence is due to my computer having crashed two days ago. I am posting from my local library.

2.   You responded in a snarky way to Rufus, where he had simply voiced his view, as everyone on this forum is entitled to do.  Isn’t that what forums are about? Or do we all need approval from you before we post?
LBK, the only two posts you have submitted to this thread have been to chastise me. Are you going to ever address the OP? That is, after all, what forums are about.
What of your post chastising Rufus for voicing his opinion? What's sauce for the goose ...
LBK, what you are doing to scold me on this thread is off topic, especially seeing that you've contributed absolutely nothing else here. As a moderator, I have the authority to enforce our forum rule that you work to keep threads on topic by directing you to stop this, but since it's me you're chastising, I feel it an abuse of my moderatorial authority to defend myself in this way. What I can do is tell you that what you are doing is tantamount to bullying. I have done nothing to you on this thread to provoke your wrath, nor has Rufus ever objected to any of the posts for which you have upbraided me. I therefore deem it necessary to ask that you stop using this thread to chastise me. If you don't stop, I will file a formal harassment complaint against you.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2013, 04:29:58 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.