Hello Dan-Romania, the paradox of the incarnation displays God being able to become man. The essence of God remains the same. (I may be confusing essence and energies again, so please feel free to correct me.)
Sin is a human concept. God killed people in the OT, is killing everybody he makes them rape, etc. Jesus "broke" the OT Law. So "yes".
You believe that God can sin?
Just on comment on the "limiting God" phrase. IMHO, there is a right way and a wrong way to understand this concept. God can do all that. And one of the proofs in that direction is the paradox of the Incarnation.
There are many limitations (if you wish to call them that) to God. God cannot act against His nature (ie. sinning, cease to exist, etc). God cannot perform logical impossibilities (ie. make round squares, create a rock to big for Him to push up a hill, etc). God cannot be a contradiction to that which makes Him God. (ie. He cannot be a lesser being of an alternate or other universe, the Mormon concept of God).
These are not so much "limitations" as they are clarifications of who God is.
Secondly, I question your statement that sin is a human concept. Can you please provide Scripture/Church Tradition that substantiates this comment.
As TheTrisagion said sin in Orthodoxy is "missing the mark". Sin it is mostly seen as a disease than a transgression of a certain strict law. Orthodoxy uses as little penal language as possible. Orthodoxy deals with the individual, with the actual problem of the sin which is veneric , infecting, harming and poisoning. As Paul says "everything is permissible" (1Cor 6:12).
What I meant is that sin in penal ways is more of a human construct from my POV. Legalism compels and inhibates the soul.
Third, you have equated killing with sin. However, there is a distinction between murder and killing. Murder is called sin, killing is not necessarily so.
potato - potatoe , relative morals already?
Fourth, can you give an example of Jesus breaking the OT law? Remember to distinguish between the OT law and pharisee's law of 2nd Temple Judaism.
Perhaps He didn't. But that is not the point. The point is God is limitless. A God that can be put into a box is no longer God, something like that (paraphrasing).
There is a serious consequence here. God is either righteous, or he is unrighteous. There is no middle ground. If, as has been discussed in this thread, Love is the ultimate righteousness and God is unrighteous, how then can God be love? If you say God is not love, then I worship a different God.
Fifth, please be patient with me. Your comments appear to run contrary to all I have been taught and seen lived out by those I know who seek God. I will try to remain teachable.
As I said God is beyond such concepts as "righteous/unrighteous".
I don't believe I am the best person to advice you or the most knowledgeable of what Orthodoxy is, so I might risk misrepresenting it, and if/when I do that I beg the others who see my post to correct me.
I must say that I am wary of moral relativism. I'll grant that a lot of issues are relative, but taken to its final conclusion it leads into disturbing places.
However, something has occurred to me. My point of view has been that sin is contrasted against righteousness/justice/morality. I then naturally draw the conclusion that if righteous is called a relative matter, then sin is called a relative matter. But that does not appear to be the case here.
Please correct me if I'm wrong... your point of view is that sin is contrasted with Life. Sin is not a question of right and wrong but of life and death. The ancient writing of the Didache teaches: "There are two ways, one of life and one of death; and between the two ways there is a great difference. Now, this is the way of life: 'First, you must love God who made you, and second, your neighbor as yourself.' And whatever you want people to refrain from doing to you, you must not do to them... But the way of death is this: First of all, it is wicked and thoroughly blasphemous..." (Didache in Early Church Fathers
, ed. C. Richardson, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia. 1:1-2; 5:1a. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.viii.i.iii.html
Is this distinction of point of views accurate?
Righteousness, no longer being contrasted to sin, is solely a matter of Law and therefore has taken on a purely legalistic tone distinct from sin. The Law is a teacher of life and death but is itself not equal to life and death. Now law was created for humanity (for example, man was not created for the Sabbath but the Sabbath for man), as such it has become subject to the whims of humanity distinguishing itself further from the spiritual matters of life and death. Because you see righteousness as a matter of law made for man and unconnected to the life and death nature of sin, you can say that God is beyond matters of righteousness and unrighteousness.
At the same time, the Way of Life is the substance of what the law is supposed to teach(Gal 4:1-3): Love, the highest of virtues that encompasses all other virtues.
From my protestant point of view, I equate righteousness with the "substance of what the law is supposed to teach" = love = life.
On the other hand from your point of view, righteousness seems to be a dependent function of the law, a mere matter of the law. As such it is separated from the matter of sin, of life and death. The "substance of what the law is supposed to teach" (that is Love) however remains as the Orthodox way of life.
Have I miss-represented anything or totally confused the issue?
The limitlessness of God appears to be a philosophical issue - one exacerbated by different view points, terminology, and the mystery of God.