Author Topic: God and Anthropomorphism  (Read 5182 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Onesimus

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 479
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: God and Anthropomorphism
« Reply #45 on: November 09, 2015, 12:15:49 AM »
God bless you Rohzek.

I wish you well.   


Offline NicholasMyra

  • Antivoluntarist evangelist
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,836
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: God and Anthropomorphism
« Reply #46 on: November 09, 2015, 12:27:14 AM »
Rohzek,

Metropolitan Zizioulas and Christos Yannaras are not using analytical language. They are primarily using Greek patristic language interpreted through a lens ostensibly derived from the works of Martin Heidegger and Emmanuel Levinas.

So you guys are gonna inevitably talk past one another on this as long as everyone is sticking to their guns.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2015, 12:28:09 AM by NicholasMyra »
Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son
...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,773
Re: God and Anthropomorphism
« Reply #47 on: November 09, 2015, 01:02:54 AM »
I don't have much to add at the moment, but I would like to make one comment:

I don't see a need to make an argument to bypass the claim that God having a mind makes God mutable.  The very fact of the Incarnation, to me, proves that God is indeed mutable (for the Logos was mutable).

Actually, on second thought, I have a second comment as well:

Due to the Incarnation, anthropomorphism is not only able to be incorporated into Christian theology, it must, or else Christ is not truly a man (and I think Christ being a man does in fact have implications for the entire Trinity).
Christianity teaches that God the Word became incarnate without change, for the Logos is immutable.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline JamesRottnek

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,256
  • I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine
Re: God and Anthropomorphism
« Reply #48 on: November 09, 2015, 01:03:53 AM »
I don't have much to add at the moment, but I would like to make one comment:

I don't see a need to make an argument to bypass the claim that God having a mind makes God mutable.  The very fact of the Incarnation, to me, proves that God is indeed mutable (for the Logos was mutable).

Actually, on second thought, I have a second comment as well:

Due to the Incarnation, anthropomorphism is not only able to be incorporated into Christian theology, it must, or else Christ is not truly a man (and I think Christ being a man does in fact have implications for the entire Trinity).
Christianity teaches that God the Word became incarnate without change, for the Logos is immutable.

Then the Logos did not become man, but rather accorded the title 'Man' to his ventriloquist dummy.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2015, 01:05:38 AM by JamesRottnek »
"Homosexuality has been a popular topic, but not Satanic trances."

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,773
Re: God and Anthropomorphism
« Reply #49 on: November 09, 2015, 01:14:32 AM »
I don't have much to add at the moment, but I would like to make one comment:

I don't see a need to make an argument to bypass the claim that God having a mind makes God mutable.  The very fact of the Incarnation, to me, proves that God is indeed mutable (for the Logos was mutable).

Actually, on second thought, I have a second comment as well:

Due to the Incarnation, anthropomorphism is not only able to be incorporated into Christian theology, it must, or else Christ is not truly a man (and I think Christ being a man does in fact have implications for the entire Trinity).
Christianity teaches that God the Word became incarnate without change, for the Logos is immutable.

Then the Logos did not become man, but rather accorded the title 'Man' to his ventriloquist dummy.
Does unfortunate, self-serving "theology" lead to bad Christology, or does bad Christology lead to to unfortunate, self-serving "theology."
God stooping down to our level did not bring Him down to our level.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2015, 01:15:43 AM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: God and Anthropomorphism
« Reply #50 on: November 09, 2015, 01:16:12 AM »
I rather dislike words like immutable, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc because it really comes down to how you define the word. If you say that Christ becoming man is a change, then no, from that perspective God is not immutable. If you say that despite God taking on humanity He remained as He was, then yes, God is immutable. The word is only useful when an explanation of the word is provided and having to do that kind of takes away the purpose of using the word.
God bless!

Offline RobS

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,914
Re: God and Anthropomorphism
« Reply #51 on: November 09, 2015, 01:46:40 AM »
God stooping down to our level did not bring Him down to our level.
I don't know about this Isa.
"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death (μελεπᾷν ἀποθνήσκειν)."

— Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment XI

Modernist thinking and being consists of nothing but uncritical acceptance.

Offline JamesRottnek

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,256
  • I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine
Re: God and Anthropomorphism
« Reply #52 on: November 09, 2015, 02:45:25 AM »
I don't have much to add at the moment, but I would like to make one comment:

I don't see a need to make an argument to bypass the claim that God having a mind makes God mutable.  The very fact of the Incarnation, to me, proves that God is indeed mutable (for the Logos was mutable).

Actually, on second thought, I have a second comment as well:

Due to the Incarnation, anthropomorphism is not only able to be incorporated into Christian theology, it must, or else Christ is not truly a man (and I think Christ being a man does in fact have implications for the entire Trinity).
Christianity teaches that God the Word became incarnate without change, for the Logos is immutable.

Then the Logos did not become man, but rather accorded the title 'Man' to his ventriloquist dummy.
Does unfortunate, self-serving "theology" lead to bad Christology, or does bad Christology lead to to unfortunate, self-serving "theology."
God stooping down to our level did not bring Him down to our level.

Oh of course.  He didn't come "down to our level" he just "emptied himself" choosing to forego "equality with God" and "humbled himself."  But, of course, Christ did not come "down to our level."
"Homosexuality has been a popular topic, but not Satanic trances."

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,364
Re: God and Anthropomorphism
« Reply #53 on: November 09, 2015, 02:57:45 AM »
Rohzek,

Metropolitan Zizioulas and Christos Yannaras are not using analytical language. They are primarily using Greek patristic language interpreted through a lens ostensibly derived from the works of Martin Heidegger and Emmanuel Levinas.

So you guys are gonna inevitably talk past one another on this as long as everyone is sticking to their guns.

I have more appreciation of Foucault than for Heidegger, and Foucault is pretty low on my list of philosophers who contributed anything positive to philosophy. Personally, I see Foucault more in the light of an anthropologist or sociologist than a philosopher.

Additionally, I think the difference is even more stark because there seems to be some very basic and elementary confusion between morality/meaning of life and epistemology.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2015, 03:00:53 AM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Antivoluntarist evangelist
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,836
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: God and Anthropomorphism
« Reply #54 on: November 09, 2015, 02:58:00 AM »
Christianity teaches that God the Word became incarnate without change, for the Logos is immutable.
Well, at 3 BC the Logos wasn't incarnate. at 33 AD the Logos is incarnate. So something changed. What was it?

Whatever a hypostasis is in Orthodoxy, we at least typically agree that it's the "this" that grounds something's (or if you prefer, some supra-non-existent's) existence.

So to say that the hypostasis of the Logos did not change in the Incarnation would be to say that the "This" who is begotten of the Father before all ages without a mother is the "This" who is begotten of the Virgin Mary in time without a human father. A new "This" was not created in the Virgin's womb, and the "This" who was before all ages was not destroyed. Plus, he remains the Divine Word because his unlimited Divine existence is somehow had within and through his truly limited human reality; here is where categories break down.

None of this needs to contradict the Divine Kenosis.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2015, 03:01:07 AM by NicholasMyra »
Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son
...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Antivoluntarist evangelist
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,836
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: God and Anthropomorphism
« Reply #55 on: November 09, 2015, 03:04:33 AM »
Additionally, I think the difference is even more stark because there seems to be some very basic and elementary confusion between morality/meaning of life and epistemology.
Well if you consider Cartesian solipsism to be a vice...

Why can't some metaphysical or epistemological views be vicious?
« Last Edit: November 09, 2015, 03:05:30 AM by NicholasMyra »
Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son
...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,364
Re: God and Anthropomorphism
« Reply #56 on: November 09, 2015, 03:14:24 AM »
Additionally, I think the difference is even more stark because there seems to be some very basic and elementary confusion between morality/meaning of life and epistemology.
Well if you consider solipsism to be a vice...

Why can't some metaphysical or epistemological views be vicious?

No, I don't. I'm an epistemological/methodological solipsist more or less.

Never once was there ever a refutation of the cogito argument in any of the posts. Rather, a strawman was built up that Descartes spoke about the meaning of life (which he never did as far as I am aware of; especially concerning his cogito argument), an issue I never brought up in any of the posts here. It's a completely different issue. And if someone wants to say that they are the same, then they better provide rational arguments for such. Nevermind the fact that a Church Father, Augustine of Hippo, made virtually the same cogito argument as Descartes. To treat it as though it is mere trash for drunkards either is disingenuity or reveals a great lack of understanding.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2015, 03:16:35 AM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Onesimus

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 479
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: God and Anthropomorphism
« Reply #57 on: November 09, 2015, 03:15:58 AM »
 ::)

Offline William T

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,545
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: God and Anthropomorphism
« Reply #58 on: November 09, 2015, 07:53:23 PM »
Additionally, I think the difference is even more stark because there seems to be some very basic and elementary confusion between morality/meaning of life and epistemology.
Well if you consider solipsism to be a vice...

Why can't some metaphysical or epistemological views be vicious?

No, I don't. I'm an epistemological/methodological solipsist more or less.

Never once was there ever a refutation of the cogito argument in any of the posts. Rather, a strawman was built up that Descartes spoke about the meaning of life (which he never did as far as I am aware of; especially concerning his cogito argument), an issue I never brought up in any of the posts here. It's a completely different issue. And if someone wants to say that they are the same, then they better provide rational arguments for such. Nevermind the fact that a Church Father, Augustine of Hippo, made virtually the same cogito argument as Descartes. To treat it as though it is mere trash for drunkards either is disingenuity or reveals a great lack of understanding.

Wow Rohz.  I have to admit, your post had me utterly perplexed.  I have to hand it to you for showing such a unique view.

  Couple of questions for you:

A) Are you Greek?  I know this may seem like a glib question, but it really is a shock for me to see an Orthodox or even just a Greek express these views in this way.  Are you a 4th generation Greek American or something?  The only time my mind wandered over to such a position is when I was younger and I was being utterly cynical.

B) I'm not going to refute Descartes or Augustine but some points and questions:

- Are you aware that Descartes marks perhaps the biggest fundamental break in philosophy when discussing Orthodox or Catholic worldviews, and this shift is usually seen in.a negative light.

- That it is completely original and very eccentric to trade in Enlightenment " rationalism " or idealism for more classic metaphysics.  Whatever faults they may have, Both scholastic and "post modern" thought tend to be more compatible as a whole (and much broader in scope) than Kant, Hegel, Spinoza, Bertrand Russel, or Descartes.  I think this is a fairly standard position for both Orthodox and Catholics.

- That both Catholics and Orthodox tend to find Augustine's "Cartesian Dualism" very problematic..and something of a hangover from his Manichean days.  Augustin is a saint, and usually a very profitable one to read, but this is exactly where everyone but Calvinists tend to have major problems with him.

-Descartes is essentially considered (sometimes a little to harshly) the biggest philosophical whipping boy in all of philosophy by just about all schools of thought.  Kant and (unfortunately) Hegel still may have some pull, Descartes is considered dated.  While it's highly outré to use Descartes for Orthodox and Catholics, it's still very heterodox to use his epistemology on a secular level outside of things like engineering.
 
C) Another profile question:

Are you under the age of 24 and in college?  I get that Descartes and solipsism is a very very natural instinct, especially for young men in college.  But I tend to think it's kind of a trap.  But if you're set on this train of thought, I guess keep following the dialectic.  Hopefully you'll find Humean / Husserl solutions to Cartesian problems.  Good luck.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2015, 08:15:19 PM by William T »

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Antivoluntarist evangelist
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,836
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: God and Anthropomorphism
« Reply #59 on: November 09, 2015, 08:31:15 PM »
Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son
...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

Offline Onesimus

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 479
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: God and Anthropomorphism
« Reply #60 on: November 09, 2015, 09:30:43 PM »
What is most problematic here is the separation of moral and epistemological components of human anthropology.  It certainly follows a very Protestant and Roman Catholic line of thinking.   

Orthodox theology holds that the fall has never been solely moral.  The fall is ontological.   Epistemology is part of our ontology, it is not untouched.   Dissecting the human like a frog it's a frog and separating the "moral" from the ontological whole is not helpful in the slightest. 

Without grounding in Orthodox thought on the subject, what you have unwittingly done is with dismissive waive of your hand discounted patristic  thought and Tradition, as well as dogmatic formulations on the subject in order to defend your own ideas and those of your philosophical idols.   

Again, speaking to your spiritual father about this is crucial in the formation of your life in the Faith.   I'd go so far as to say you should have him read this whole exchange.   

I know you love philosophy.   There is room for it.   In its proper place.   

http://www.orthodox.net/articles/orthodox-mind.pdf






Offline NicholasMyra

  • Antivoluntarist evangelist
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,836
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: God and Anthropomorphism
« Reply #61 on: November 09, 2015, 11:52:54 PM »
What is his Father-Confessor going to tell him?
« Last Edit: November 09, 2015, 11:53:12 PM by NicholasMyra »
Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son
...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

Offline Onesimus

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 479
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: God and Anthropomorphism
« Reply #62 on: November 10, 2015, 12:44:47 AM »
What is his Father-Confessor going to tell him?

I don't know.  And that's the point.   Orthodoxy and spiritual formation happens in a face to face relationship with someone who knows you and can work with you in relationship, who knows your needs and struggles. 

OC.net lends towards atomizing ideas, and degenerates into ad hominim attacks and defensiveness / offensiveness on all our parts.  A good Father Confessor can tell if the ideas that are circulating in one's mind are harmful to one's spiritual life or not.

The Father Confessor will give him better insights than any of us, and given consistent interactions can guide all of us through these kinds of logoismoi.   He may affirm certain thoughts and behaviors.   He may show where certain thoughts and behaviors are not helpful.

OC.net inflames passions and I think is not a very conducive place for the guidance that is truly needed in such cases and with questions like this.   See  http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390444592404578030351784405148  for the kind thing I'm talking about.  People here love to tell each other to "pound sand" and in their anonymous interactions and their own ideas and minds become cemented as in a heated kiln.     Whatever it is a Father Confessor has to say to him will be tailored to a real relationship AND it will have the benefit of not being a venue which is ultimately inconsenquential to the one's spiritual formation.   

I will often take my online interactions to my Spiritual Father.   He has taught me where to let go...where to lean in...and has generally taught me that I need to bring these things into confession as well.   But if this is an area of one's life that is somehow separated from or off limits to the Spiritual Father, and you have a reason why this should be, please express it.

Many of us allow these boards to become catalysts of sin to us.   But we don't always discern that.   Taking these interactions to our Spiritual Father helps us learn to discern that.   

I will be taking this to my Spiritual Father, because how I interact with others and the information and ideas I present both on and offline is important to who I am as a Christian.         

« Last Edit: November 10, 2015, 12:48:00 AM by AaronIsom »

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,364
Re: God and Anthropomorphism
« Reply #63 on: November 10, 2015, 12:51:02 AM »
Wow Rohz.  I have to admit, your post had me utterly perplexed.  I have to hand it to you for showing such a unique view.

  Couple of questions for you:

A) Are you Greek?  I know this may seem like a glib question, but it really is a shock for me to see an Orthodox or even just a Greek express these views in this way.  Are you a 4th generation Greek American or something?  The only time my mind wandered over to such a position is when I was younger and I was being utterly cynical.

Do take note that I do believe in the existence of material matter and the outside world. However, I am very comfortable with the fact that I cannot prove it. As for my ethnicity, no I am not Greek. I'm a convert from Methodism and Catholicism. And no, I did not read much philosophy prior to my conversion to Orthodoxy, so it is not a holdover from my pre-Orthodox days.

B) I'm not going to refute Descartes or Augustine but some points and questions:

- Are you aware that Descartes marks perhaps the biggest fundamental break in philosophy when discussing Orthodox or Catholic worldviews, and this shift is usually seen in.a negative light.

I'm aware that his impact is polarizing among my coreligionists, yes.

- That it is completely original and very eccentric to trade in Enlightenment " rationalism " or idealism for more classic metaphysics.  Whatever faults they may have, Both scholastic and "post modern" thought tend to be more compatible as a whole (and much broader in scope) than Kant, Hegel, Spinoza, Bertrand Russel, or Descartes.  I think this is a fairly standard position for both Orthodox and Catholics.

I am somewhat aware of that, but I try to stay away from post-modernism. I find it to be absurd for reasons that are best left for another thread. The idea that the analytic tradition is contrary to faith I think is reactionary against some of the vehement atheism proclaimed by the likes of Kant and Hume.

- That both Catholics and Orthodox tend to find Augustine's "Cartesian Dualism" very problematic..and something of a hangover from his Manichean days.  Augustin is a saint, and usually a very profitable one to read, but this is exactly where everyone but Calvinists tend to have major problems with him.

First, the dualism of Manicheanism is very different from what Descartes ever spoke of. Second, Augustine never spoke much on the epistemology or existence of material matter other than that it was not inherently evil. It would be improper to associate Cartesian dualism with him, although his cogito argument is similar to Descartes'.

-Descartes is essentially considered (sometimes a little to harshly) the biggest philosophical whipping boy in all of philosophy by just about all schools of thought.  Kant and (unfortunately) Hegel still may have some pull, Descartes is considered dated.  While it's highly outré to use Descartes for Orthodox and Catholics, it's still very heterodox to use his epistemology on a secular level outside of things like engineering.

Yes, Descartes' mechanical philosophy is incredibly dated. And its been known to be wrong since the life of Newton. Nevertheless, he was instrumental in his affirmation of the cogito and the basis for innate knowledge. In short, all one really needs to read by him is the first part of Principia Philosophiae. Everything else is negligible. His influence can still be seen in modern psychology to this day, with the great concern for subjective experience, etc. He was also instrumental for the foundation of human peculiarity - the capacity for language, which no other species posses anything like it. Noam Chomsky writes a lot about this stuff in his linguistic and philosophical works. Colin McGinn also touches upon it a bit as well.
 
C) Another profile question:

Are you under the age of 24 and in college?  I get that Descartes and solipsism is a very very natural instinct, especially for young men in college.  But I tend to think it's kind of a trap.  But if you're set on this train of thought, I guess keep following the dialectic.  Hopefully you'll find Humean / Husserl solutions to Cartesian problems.  Good luck.

Slightly older and in a hopefully brief period of time off between degrees. Pray that I get accepted into several PhD programs to choose from. It's application season, so I'm constantly in a flurry and worry over the matter.

I've read a good bit of Hume, and I am well aware of the problem known as induction. Hume humbly acknowledged this problem inherent is strict empiricism. Are you familiar with Karl Popper's work on the matter? I approach this whole question from Popper's post-positivist framework. I cannot prove the existence of body. I only assume it to exist because I decide to trust my senses, whether prompted by my will or by God's influence. This still leaves the issue of the mind-body problem, which I happen to agree with the Mysterianist assessment of: that we are not capable of solving it due to human limitations. Nevertheless, I believe in the idea that a relationship with God and that experiencing his divine energies transcends the mind-body problem. So that when one has a relationship with God, they do not merely assert that God exists because of some empirical experience via taste, touch, etc. These are certainly factors. But rather they assert his existence because they intuitively know via the power of the Holy Spirit. In short, He is more true than the very existence of your kitchen table. Yet, this personal truth must become personal for everyone. Therefore, it cannot be simply communicated though this fact does not deny the value of evangelism. Rather, it is a truth that must be realized so-to-speak.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2015, 01:02:10 AM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Antivoluntarist evangelist
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,836
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: God and Anthropomorphism
« Reply #64 on: November 10, 2015, 01:28:42 AM »
I will be taking this to my Spiritual Father, because how I interact with others and the information and ideas I present both on and offline is important to who I am as a Christian.       
That's fair. But you think what he's saying is worth reporting because it alarms you. However the things that Rohzek is explicitly saying are things that most modern people---including most faithful Orthodox Christians---implicitly buy into. As he says,

[Descartes's] influence can still be seen in modern psychology to this day

One only has to look at some contemporary Orthodox criticisms of the Charismatic movement ("It asks you to trust your feelings, and feelings are subjective!") to see just how Cartesian we are. So perhaps talking these ideas out here will be valuable.
Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son
...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,364
Re: God and Anthropomorphism
« Reply #65 on: November 10, 2015, 01:42:51 AM »
I will be taking this to my Spiritual Father, because how I interact with others and the information and ideas I present both on and offline is important to who I am as a Christian.       
That's fair. But you think what he's saying is worth reporting because it alarms you. However the things that Rohzek is explicitly saying are things that most modern people---including most faithful Orthodox Christians---implicitly buy into. As he says,

[Descartes's] influence can still be seen in modern psychology to this day

One only has to look at some contemporary Orthodox criticisms of the Charismatic movement ("It asks you to trust your feelings, and feelings are subjective!") to see just how Cartesian we are. So perhaps talking these ideas out here will be valuable.

I think it is fair to say that one should trust that they experience any said feeling however subjective they might be. Whether or not one should let their feelings guide their decisions or judgments is another matter entirely.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2015, 01:46:57 AM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline William T

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,545
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: God and Anthropomorphism
« Reply #66 on: November 11, 2015, 09:08:57 PM »
I'm going to bow out of this because I don't think I know exactly how to approach this in a way that would be profitable.  I may chime in later if I think of how to address you clearly.  Just a few points before I go:

1) My overall point about St. Augustine is that usually the problems one finds in Augustine are going to be similar to Descartes and Calvin.  All Church Fathers have problems, this was Augustines.

2) "postmodern" and "enlightenment rationalism".

  By enlightenment rationalism I am specifically talking about a limited use and definition of reason and how it is applied. Names as diverse as  Descartes, Locke, Bacon, Hobbes and perhaps more controversial Hegel and Kant would be the poster boys of this kind of rationalism.  It usually is considered  to have had its last gasp in Vienna Circle Positivism as a living thought, but is very much alive in the popular mind especially in America (Toqueville and Jules Verne thought of Americans as natural Cartesians). Name dropping aside, the major figure in all of this is Rene Descartes.

 By "postmodern"; I was really just referring to any modern philosophy that was counter to this kind of Rationalism.  Names as diverse and contradictory as Hume, Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, Quine, Popper, Husserl , Foucault, Hiedeggar, and the like could all be considered "postmodern" the way I was (perhaps slightly idosyncratically) using the term.  I did not mean "Post Structuralism", which would be a genus in the family of what I'm thinking of and is something that isn't really my cup of tea either.  Once again, I may be being somewhat idiosyncratic.  I get this distinction may seem arbitrary and useless, which is a big reason I should duck out of this conversation.  I don't know how to simply unpack what I want to drive at.  I really don't have the temperment of a philosopher, and I'm no good at explaining ideas, ideas are far from my forté.

3) When you list some of your concerns, I think I'm usually on board with what your saying.  I think it's just the means to state those ends I fiND very perplexing.

4) I like Popper.  It's been awhile since I've read him, I don't know how much of him I subconsciously use. I remember I had some major problems with him, but overall I think he's on the "same debate team" as me.

Good luck on your PHD apps.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2015, 09:20:32 PM by William T »

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Antivoluntarist evangelist
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,836
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: God and Anthropomorphism
« Reply #67 on: November 12, 2015, 05:09:04 PM »
By "postmodern"; I was really just referring to any modern philosophy that was counter to this kind of Rationalism.
While that's not what it means, that's what it should mean.
Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son
...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

Offline William T

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,545
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: God and Anthropomorphism
« Reply #68 on: November 12, 2015, 05:28:45 PM »
By "postmodern"; I was really just referring to any modern philosophy that was counter to this kind of Rationalism.
While that's not what it means, that's what it should mean.

Yeah, I use an odd definition.  I'm not too sure what the official defintion is because it's never been clearly stated to me.  I read Yannaras' book called "post modern metaphysics", but he isn't the clearest or easiest writer for me to read, I dont think I understood the book at all.

If I had to wager a guess on a more official defintion of  "postmodernism": it has to do with subjectivity and interpretation of facts, both of which are great things to focus on.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2015, 05:32:37 PM by William T »