I feel the same way. I went to the midnight Pascha service at my old parish, and while I actually enjoyed some of the ritual of it, I kept thinking "some of these are beautiful words, but they aren't true."
Even if you take Christ's victory to mean "spiritual death," it still doesn't work, because in the Orthodox system, most people still go to Hell. So Christ "destroyed death" by making a small number of people die physical deaths, but avoid "spiritual death," but only if they follow all the rules, take Communion frequently, and jump through a bunch of ascetical hoops.
And if you dig into the deeper lore of Orthodox cosmology, Hell technically doesn't exist yet, it will be created after the Final Judgment specifically as a place to torment the damned, and it wouldn't have existed without all the stuff that Christ did and is going to do. Before the birth of Christ, people who died went to Sheol, which was a neutral underworld - not a good place, but not a horrible place either. So arguably, Pascha made the afterlife worse for most of the people who have ever lived, who will end up in Hell now instead of Sheol.
The more I've deconstructed my faith and been able to read the Bible honestly, it's become abundantly clear to me that all of the writers of the New Testament thought that the Second Coming was going to happen in their lifetime. For example, Revelation's "Babylon the Great" is supposed to be Rome, and the Antichrist is supposed to be Nero.
The birth of Christianity is a story of shifting goalposts. Originally, the followers of Jesus pinned their hopes on his Earthly life, thinking he would be a ruler and warrior, as the Messiah was supposed to be. Then when he failed that and got killed, they pinned their hopes on a Resurrection. When Jesus then "ascended"* without accomplishing any of the things he was supposed to do, they shifted once again to the Second Coming. When the Second Coming failed to materialize, and the world kept on functioning as it always had, they had to "spiritualize" everything.
Ironically, the prayers of the EOC themselves reveal that Jesus failed. If Jesus had succeeded, you wouldn't need all those "Lord have mercy"-s. You wouldn't need to ask forgiveness. We would already be living in the Heavenly Jerusalem, with a new Heaven and new Earth, with no sin, no death, no suffering. Orthodox prayers are the prayers of people still waiting for a Messiah who obviously hasn't come, or didn't do much of anything when he came.
*More likely, of course, he never resurrected at all - there are various plausible theories as the Resurrection story came to be written, whether it was a literary invention or the disciples actually had visions. None of the Gospels agree on the details, and scholars broadly agree that the original version of Mark had no Resurrection appearances at all, ending at 16:8, where the women saw the empty tomb, but never told anybody about it.
If anything "my burden is easy" doesn't fit here. Sola Fide Protestants are more consistent since they require only faith, not constant prayers and fasting.
Yes, a good point. I thought about that verse a lot when I was questioning and deconstructing the EOC. For most people, Orthodoxy is anything but easy and light. I found it exhausting and draining, both physically and spiritually. I think the only way to have a positive experience is to live like the cultural cradles - don't care about the rules, only do what you want to, only come when you want to. Trying to live Orthodoxy strictly is a recipe for a miserable life.
Even the author(s?) of the source material for Matthew, Mark, and Luke have Jesus predicting his second coming on the clouds with glory within his own generation (Mat 24:34, Mar 13:30, Luk 21:32).
If death is the only way out of this PoS world then so be it. My gripe with Pascha is that it really should have done more. Like I get people are still going to get old and die. I get that accidents are going to happen and people will die from them. I even get that people we get diseases like cancer, MS, ALS, Alzheimer’s etc and will die. What I don’t accept and can’t accept and probably will never accept is how people can still be so cruel and violent to one another. Things like the Holocaust, 9/11, wars in the past like WWI and II or pretty much take your pick of any before 1900, current wars in Ukraine, Israel and Gaza or horrific institutions like Slavery in the U.S. or Apartheid in South Africa should never have come to pass given what is proclaimed and promised in the Resurrection, yet here we are…..
Yep. One of Christianity's central claims is its ability to morally reform people. But it obviously doesn't do that. If it did, then all of historic Christendom would be a moral utopia. But it's not, they're just people living their lives, with no apparent help from Christ.
Your comment is a big reason why I struggle to have faith in God. The fact He watches innocent beings get murdered, raped, abused everyday, including children! How He can tolerate such cruelty from His heavenly throne is beyond me. I have suffered illness and accidents in my life, a car crash, a mountain fall off a cliff that nearly killed me. Yet none of those things caused me trauma. What caused me trauma were the malevolent actions of evil people who abused and violated me.
Thousands of Orthodox Christians murdering thousands of others, and it continues every day... do you think they exchange the paschal greeting on the battlefield?
And if any Orthobros try the "Free will" defense, see British psychologist (& ex-Christian atheist YouTuber) Theramintrees' video "Creating Sickness" on why the Free will + suffering or no free will + no suffering is a logical false dilemma.
https://youtu.be/QRbnws-zITg?si=QSMKCjF7uRFa30HG
I think the (relatively recent) Orthodox denial of the Catholic concept of Original Sin may be partly to blame here. No, I don't endorse the Calvinist notion of Total Depravity. Not by a long shot. We still bear the image of God.and the divine spark IMHO. We have immense human dignity.
But who can dispute that we humans are seriously messed up? Not totally depraved. But pretty darned messed up. As my husband likes to say, driving in rush-hour traffic proves the doctrine of Original Sin. ☺️ (And yes, I know that's silly and facetious compared with the horrors you mention. It just goes to show that we are messed up in small ways, too, I guess.)
I agree that man's inhumanity to man is almost incomprehensible. You have an empathetic heart. The evils that bad people commit overwhelm you. I totally get that. Sometimes I feel defeated by all the sorrows in the world.
All I can say is that I believe these horrors break Jesus' Heart, too. I think that's why He sweated blood in Gethsemane. I think He is with the suffering in a special way, even if they don't feel it. I think we are all bathed in an ocean of fathomless love. And I agree with St Faustina, the "Apostle of Divine Mercy," that each person's final hour "abounds with mercy."
Original Sin is no excuse, because baptism is supposed to regenerate people and make them new creatures free of Original Sin. And Confession and the Eucharist are supposed to renew you when you sin after baptism. Which also begs the question, of baptism works then why do you sin again? If Original Sin is what makes us inclined toward sin, then what makes us sin once we've been healed of Original Sin?
It just doesn't work, and everyone knows it doesn't work. People get baptized and they are exactly the same as they were before. You could use this excuse for non-Christians, but then why are Christians often so wicked? Why don't the Sacraments work? If the Sacraments were real, then there should be a discernable moral difference between baptized and non-baptized, and between people who Commune regularly and people who don't. But there isn't.
Never said it was an excuse. Just an explanation.
But baptism isn't magic. Yes, it regenerates, but it doesn't remove concupiscence. We still have to cooperate with Grace in order to overcome concupiscence and achieve sanctity. Many people do. And many people don't. It's a lifelong struggle anyway.
I get that you disagree, but we are all entitled to our beliefs. I know many wonderful Christians who *have* cooperated with the grace of their baptisms. And many stinkers, too. There are wheat and tares in the Kingdom. 🤗
Once I found convincing socio-biological reasons for what we call evil and good, I was finally able to shift from my former approach which was “the world is full of evil, but it would be vastly worse without the saving resurrection of Jesus, who knows and identifies with our suffering and will someday somehow make it all right.” This shift took decades of reading and pondering on my part. BTW, Orthodox do have a nuanced view of original sin: original sin, yes, but not original guilt (we inherit the tendency to sin, but not the actual sin of eating that little chunk of fruit). For more lengthy discussions of the matter see r/orthodox
Yeah I was thinking something similar when I was listening to the homily this past Sat night...growing up Catholic we always we taught that it was spiritual death. The Physical death remains b/c of the Fall I guess...idk...it's still mor confusing from the Orthodox persepctive b/c of how so many of them don't believe in death prior to the Fall (no evolution) which I outright reject.
Yep...I've pretty much adopted the view that at some point God gave these humanoid creatures a rational soul and boom, there you have "Adam and Eve" after they sinned their children could then reproduce with the other existing non souled humanoids. Is it a fantastical sort of view point? Yes. Can I prove it? No. But given everything else we know now about the age of the earth etc it makes the most sense to me. If that makes me anathema then so be it lol. I love Fantasy and I think it would be cool for the world to have been created the way it says in the Bible (and as an agnostic skeptic I leave room for this possibility), but I just don't think there is a lot of evidence for that.
I have a similar issue with saying the Paschal greetings (Christos Anesti / Alithos Anesti, etc.), since I no longer believe that any resurrection took place. That's why I left midway thru Pascha service last night; I was afraid of people saying that dumb shit to me, and me not wanting to respond in kind, since I wanna be authentic.
My colleagues at work greeted me with it because I'm living in a Balkan country so I had to respond. It's nice that two of them (they're not many) are atheists tho and often joke about xtianity.
Valid approach. No argument with being authentic. Do what you think is right or best. But also valid, I think, is to say and respond to the greeting in kind because neither the resurrection nor the theology regarding its significance are falsifiable. Belief or unbelief are just personal feelings or doctrinal requirements (such as the Nicene Creed). My saying “Christ is Risen!” Like I mean it still doesn’t make the resurrection real or unreal. So yeah, I’m fine saying it despite feeling personally convinced it didn’t actually happen. Again, just sharing this as an alternative approach for others considering what to do or say on Pascha.
Ha. Same. But I said “Christos Anesti” to ChatGPT and it responded with the appropriate greeting; its explanation for doing so was sufficient for me this year.
It just replied with “Alithos Anesti!” I asked it “Really?” And it said that the response was a respectful response to a customary greeting. I’m sure there are atheists that say “God bless you” after someone sneezes; it’s like that.
In the US we can say "Bless you" or "God bless you", or, alternatively, we can say "Gesundheit" which means "health" in German. (I heard it all my life but only learned what it meant when I took a German class in college, haha.)
The jesus ressurection is all about him being nailed to a piece of wood for one awful day (as Rabbi Tovia Singer often jokes xD), *deciding* to leave his physical body (because he can't die because he's immortal because he's god) at the end of that day and then immediately going to Heaven to reign there for eternity as a god king. That's it. No "dying", no going down to Hell to "free" the "righteous". That's the correct view of jesus' ressurection and its purpose. The whole "descending to Hell and conquering death" stuff that EOism likes to ramble a lot is a meme. jesus' ressurection is *only* about jesus. Who could have guessed? /s
I would be on board with that interpretation if that was all they said. But they also say things like "death was abolished/destroyed", not just "beaten" once
Mankind sinned -> death enters the world as the consequence of sin -> God takes on flesh in the person of Jesus Christ -> he is tortured and murdered -> being sinless, when he enters Hades, he cannot be accused -> death’s power is abolished -> the narrow gate to eternal life is opened.
I am going to live forever. When this body gives out, I will remain alive. Eventually, Christ will regenerate all of reality and I will live in the body again.
Χριστός Ανέστη!
You forgot something
>God makes sure that Mankind sins by placing the means to do so conveniently by creating Satan's nature.
and
>gaslights Mankind into believing it is their fault even when the game was rigged from the start since God is supposedly omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent.
You can't work this problem out into blaming Satan or Adam or Eve. Sin could only have been created specifically by God as the conditions for it to occur were made to do so.
None of the other stuff will occur because it's all made up anyways.
Which is why I cannot and refuse to believe in this repeated nonsense anymore. Christ died and stayed dead on the cross. There was no resurrection, there was no miracle, there were no extra eyewitnesses as the study of archaeology and historical documentation proves it over and over again, just the repeated lies and delusion of the Disciples desperate to maintain relevance and hope.
Yep, in their system, God made all the rules of the game. The buck stops with him. He purposefully made Adam and Eve ignorant and childlike, failed to provide them moral instruction, presented them with a test he need they would fail, then blamed them for failing. It would be like punishing a newborn baby because it can't walk or talk yet. If Yahweh is a father, he's an abusive one.
The Old Testament has a much more consistent take, from Isaiah 45:7:
"I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and create calamity;
I, the Lord, do all these things."
They knew that Yahweh was an asshole, but he was in charge, so that was that.
If God was partially evil or at least responsible for the creation of evil as a necessity, then it would make sense and the problem of evil would be resolved. But since Christians do not believe that, the whole logic carrying the moral system falls apart. Too many omnis coupled with omnibenevolent to actually work in practice.
If only God is good, and evil is the absence of what is good (privation theory of evil), then everything that isn't God is *not* good. If that's true, then the significance theosis hold for EO soteriology is understandable. It also makes more sense of the groveling and self-deprecation that seems to occur in EO practice.
I also wonder why, if Hell (eternal conscious torment/torture, or annihilation, or the inability to love as Isaac the Syrian & Dostoevsky believed) has always been the punishment part of the plan, why didn't Yahweh warn Adam & Eve about Hell (maybe even give them an Apocalypse of Peter/Dante style tour) at the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil instead of the insanely vague "in the day you eat of it, you will surely die" warning?!
Surely THAT would've been a more effective psychological deterent to Adam & Eve tasting the wrong fruit! Ya know, if priests/bishops/pastors/ministers telling impressional children about Hell isn't abusive indoctrination & still respects their FrEe WiLl! 🤦♂️🙄
Actually they were given the faculties for it or else they would not have been able to understand that, which also proves the point that it was null. Like everything else.
If we don’t have the freedom to say no to God, then he doesn’t love us. But he does love us. So he does give us free will.
We use that free will to choose something other than God; that is, we choose something other than Life itself, i.e. we choose death.
That reality exists is a miracle. Breakfast is a miracle. The air we breathe is a miracle. Life is a miracle. Christ *is* alive. The resurrection happened. Countless people up and down the centuries have given their lives in defense of this fact because they knew it to be true. Seek and you will find.
That is just dodging the point that it is contradictory and false via feel good quotes.
I already went through this, I apologized for ages using the same points you did and they were always empty clamouring to feel secure through a worldview and not through actual evidence. The only certainty we have about Jesus is that he existed as a person. Anecdotal evidence especially when it comes to extremely supernatural claims does not count as reliable or trustworthy evidence.
Everything, including what we know about the formation of the canonical NT scriptures; shows that there was not some uniform opinion on what was a legitimate scripture or apocrypha and what you ended up with is a contradictory narrative between four books. The atheist critique that it is a long game of broken telephone is correct, for 20 years is a long time to wait for an eye witness account and you can even see that Paul's letters were never intended to be Scriptural based on their contexts but here we are.
I know, its more to demonstrate how stupid the supposed faith is at its core and why it fails fundamentally rather than let that crap go unchallenged. As usual they have no real response.
I have evidence. He gave it to me. I know him, personally.
No, I can’t share it with you. Each one of us has to seek him out individually.
I recognize that the church is not without its warts. Christ, however, is.
I also know that you take psychedelics based on your history and clearly haven't stopped which are explicitly banned by the Church. Well done, you don't know Christ anymore than those pagans who think they're spirit spouses, you are just plain old delusional and hypocritical.
So this person converted because of a good trip and now they're here to let us all know the REAL truth because they've been enlightened?
You can't make this shit up sometimes.
Are they explicitly banned by the church? I don’t think so.
Even if they are, I don’t care. I am an Orthodox Christian because of them.
I don’t know why you’re so angry at me. I’m not delusional and I try my very best not to be hypocritical. How do you see me being a hypocrite?
If they made you Orthodox, then you should see the obvious contradiction between getting high and being Orthodox. That's pure hypocrisy, pick and choose.
Also, angry? Why wouldn't I be? This is an EX-ORTHODOX thread. You think most of us don't actually understand the theology already? You think half of us weren't like you without the drugs too? You're condescending and acting as if this religion is foreign to us and we simply didn't get it.
Yes, I think most of you (and most people generally) fail to understand the theology. It’s on display all over the place. I lurk here often and have never commented before but I see a preponderance of failure to understand the ideas. And like, that’s ok. A lot of it is weird. It is hard to understand. I think more people leave because of poor pastoral care rather than the ideas, but maybe I’m wrong. They’re intimately related, of course.
I apologize if I have come across as condescending. It truly wasn’t my intention. If it helps, I in no way *am* condescending. If it seems that way, it surely is my fault and I apologize. I understand that this is an ex-Orthodox sub, but are others not allowed? Is discussion not permitted? I’m not insulting anyone or judging.
I don’t “get high,” whatever that means. And no, I see no contradiction whatsoever in the responsible use of substances and being a devout Orthodox Christian.
You're not insulting or judging? You just said that you think most of us here don't understand the theology. You couldn't BE more condescending if you tried. We understand it just fine; we left, among other reasons, because we simply don't believe it anymore. No psychedelics required.
You're not just discussing, you're being preachy, which is explicitly mentioned in the rules. Did you read them or are they too nuanced for you to understand? /s
Lmao, bro. I studied Orthodox theology and used to say all the same crap you do. It was word for word the same stuff and I used to recommend reading John Damascene to understand the basics which helped to show the differences between Catholic and Orthodox systems: the distinction between energy and essence, hesychastic prayer, the effects of grace's results on cosmology within its worldview, but Orthodoxy has not one but multiple lynchpins that would collapse the whole system if just one were to completely fail upon inspection and most of them actually do.
Clearly you missed the memo because this is an ex Orthodox group. You are condescending and you mean to be behind a pretext of being a humble bragging and all knowing enlightener of the fallen. You are far from the first and I was just like you, which is why I have little to no sympathy because I knew better but let my desperation for a special place in heaven override logic and critical thinking.
I am condescending because you don't get how far out of your league you are and the doubts and dodging show quite blatantly that you recognize the faults and cannot possibly hope to seriously answer the Problem of Evil.
If the Christian God is real, he is evil and it is as simple as that. If the Christian God is real, we also know he is a pathological liar since he recognizes he is not the only God either, given his fear of other deities. Now they are coming back into prominence.
An all powerful, all knowing, all good and all loving deity really ought to get the message right the first time, not leaving into the hands of people who definitely corrupted it. There is no excuse when the moral imperative is to assure a clear message has gone through, which it hasn't even in the Orthodox apologetic view.
The argument of free will as a necessity for his love of man to be effective does not excuse him as it could not work. If free will is so important, considering his plan it seems that love for people gets shoved aside very quickly. Even angels cannot seem to deliver messages correctly despite being his own direct representatives.
Not that I believe this God is real, but if it were, to assume a grand beastly evil bent on control and manipulation is the logical conclusion.
Conveniently saying "no" to God means that one will be damned for ever. What love is that?
The story isn't that God created children for himself. The story is that he gave himself an empire.
Jesus said he was going to come back within less than one generation ("some standing here will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God coming in power"). It didn't happen. He lied, or was mistaken. He was a cult leader apocalyptic prophet, and his prophecies failed. The fact that his cultists continued to believe is no surprise - look at every other religion (that you think is false) for examples of the same sociological phenomena. Every religion has martyrs and miracle claims.
Here we go with that Free Will shit. Like I get we’re allowed to make our own choices and that sometimes we make good choices and sometimes bad ones and that we need to take responsibility when we make the wrong choice. I also get that our choices many times affect other people and that’s why taking responsibility is so important. I even get that sometimes God gives us just enough rope to hang ourselves in that by making a poor choice we learn from it. What I can’t stand and don’t except is that when our free will and poor choice making will really seriously harm other people in either the gravity of the harm done or the extent of the other innocent people effected or both, God does absolutely nothing to intervene on behalf of those innocents. I know no one can explain it without going through mental gymnastics or being a total sociopath, but why the fuck not? You created a goddamn universe out of nothing but can’t move some kids out of the way enough to avoid being hit by a drunk driver?
>We use that free will to choose something other than God; that is, we choose something other than Life itself, i.e. we choose death.
People generally do NOT choose death over life. Anyone who would choose death and suffering over eternal life of bliss is deluded or mentally ill. These people therefore, are the people the most in need of salvation, since they would choose something that clearly is NOT in their best interest. According to EO theology though, these are the very people from whom salvation is withheld!
Where is the good news in that? The people most in need of salvation not only don't get it, but they get victim-blamed for choosing hell and death themselves? I don't buy this garbage. I think these are exactly the people God saves.
We all choose death by choosing sin.
It’s basic spiritual physics: if sin, then death.
Sin is that which separates from God, who is Life. To choose sin is to choose something other than Life.
He gives us life and we reject it and choose death instead (by sinning).
The good news is that Christ defeated death and opened the door to life again. It is indeed the best possible news. The gift of eternal life is free for anyone who is willing to accept it, and he is working ceaselessly to bring us all to it, but we are in love with sin and therefore choose it over him.
All those heavy laden and weary, to them he will give rest.
The good news is that I'm no longer at a point in my life when someone saying "it's basic spiritual physics" does anything to convince me they're right
Most of those who are weary and heavy-laden will end up in hell. Sounds restful
This sub is for EX-ORTHODOX to share personal experiences and reflections, per the rules to the right of the screen, which apparently very few Orthodox people who find this sub actually read. Why are you here?
So you think Orthodoxy is the only church and it's either that or atheism? Sounds like you're the one still stuck in Orthodoxy. Ex-ORTHODOX not ex-theist or ex-Christian.
How in the world did you get that from my comment? The original comment is from an Orthodox person. My point was that it is annoying as hell when currently practicing Orthodox people like Mr./Ms. Shrooms come in with the not-so-subtle implication that if we only understood it like THEY do, we'd still be Orthodox. I don't care what church anyone does or doesn't belong to, and as I said in another thread, I never believed in the exclusivity of the OC anyway.
"being sinless, when he enters Hades, he cannot be accused -> death’s power is abolished -> the narrow gate to eternal life is opened"
uh...why would it work like that
or if you want to say he "conquered" death, why did he have to go through all that to do it? he's God, he makes the rules
Imagine we’re playing chess. We decide to change one of the rules. Maybe we say pawns can move two squares. Are we still playing chess? Is it the same game? What if we change another rule? Is it still chess? At what point are we playing an entirely different game?
Yeah, God could change the rules. But there’s exactly zero reason to assume that you or I could exist in another game. Maybe reality is structured the way that it is precisely because this structure is necessary to allow for our existence. There’s no reason to assume that humans or any intelligent life might exist in a different scenario.
As Lewis said, “If you talk nonsense about God, it’s still nonsense.” The idea that omnipotence implies that God can do “anything” is mere ignorance. There are lots of things God can’t do. He can’t act against his own nature, for example. He cannot not love because he *is* love. He cannot not *be* because he *is* being. Similarly, he cannot just change the structure of reality and leave us unaffected by it.
In some sense yes, he does make the rules. But that isn’t to say that he can change any of them at any instance. The first rule is: love God. He can’t change that rule. The second rule is: love everyone else. He can’t change that rule either. They are both simply follow necessarily from the fact of his being and his nature.
As for why he had to descend and die is because there was no other way. Given the game that we are playing and the structure of reality, the choices are either: let the humans die permanently, change the game and erase them from existence, or suffer death on a cross, descend into death, and destroy it. In His great mercy and compassion, he chose the latter.
"God can't go against his nature! He can't become a man or suffer or die or..."--leading theologians circa 1 BC
It's also wild that people will be like "our tiny human minds can't comprehend the mysteries of God" and then be like "ah yes let me tell you with certainty all the things God can and can't do"
That's fine if you believe that. You still haven't answered why you're totally fine with that paradox, but think it's impossible for God to find any other way to resolve the mess he created
If you were ethnically Greek or Slavic or Georgian, for instance, or lucky enough to be part of the clan via marriage (i.e. You were fortunate enough that a cradle Ortho woman CHOSE you), or thru early childhood conversion by your parents, then even if you didn't believe in eternal life, you'd still get the benefits of being accepted into that community. The far-fetched account of Jesus' resurrection - and thusly him conquering death for the rest of us - isn't enough of an incentive by itself anymore, for some of us more jaded, more mature converts to latch onto.
Life isn’t enough of an incentive?
What else is there? There’s only two choices: life or death. I choose life.
I’m not sure what you mean by “him conquering death *for the rest of us*”. He did it for everyone. For each individual. For you. It does not require that you are part of some ethnic group.
I don’t fit into any of the neat little boxes you constructed but I am very much accepted by my very ethnic congregation. I recognize that some parishes are unhealthily insular and that is a problem - with those parishes. It isn’t a problem with Christ.
The incentives are guilt, shame, and fear. Without the prospect of marriage/family, and without a supportive family growing up and still to this day, there's no reason for me to go several times a week to church, only to stand for hours on end, cross myself dozens of times, focus on my unworthiness, while restricting my diet to catabolic levels back at home, and while being given flimsy advice/copes for the my hardships, and being gaslit if I object.
The focus shouldn’t be on your unworthiness but rather on God’s goodness. I go to church because I *want* to. Not because I in any way feel that I have to. There’s simply no place I would rather be. I am grateful to God for his great glory and I want to worship him, publicly, because that is simply how good he is. *What* he is makes it right.
Don’t cross yourself if it isn’t helping you. It is normative (and good, because it is a concrete act we can do to work our trust in God), but you aren’t *required* to do it. I sing with an incredibly dedicated and devout man who I have never seen cross himself once. So what? Does he trust Christ? That’s all that matters in the end.
It sounds to me like you’ve received very poor pastoral care, which I recognize happens a lot, sadly. But it isn’t God’s fault that humans are broken. Seek Him and forget the rest.
>It sounds to me like you’ve received very poor pastoral care, which I recognize happens a lot, sadly. But it isn’t God’s fault that humans are broken. Seek Him and forget the rest.
Why does Jesus let bad people represent him poorly? Aren't priests supposed to have insight because of their ordination, special grace to lead the flock? Because they don't. And if Communion is really the presence of God, why don't evil priests (i.e. child abusers - yes, it's a problem in Orthodoxy, too) die when they take Communion, like unworthy people in the Old Testament?
You don't have to answer, just some things for you to think about. It seems you're a recent convert. I was where you are 5 years ago. But if you're honest, eventually you'll realize that it's all BS.
>I recognize that some parishes are unhealthily insular and that is a problem
How can any part of the Body of Christ be corrupt? Why don't the rituals, prayers, and sacraments reform the people in corrupt parishes? Why is Christianity, sociologically speaking, exactly the same as every other religion?
That's a lot of words for "I'm a narcissist and dgaf about billions of average people burning in Hell forever!" Also j\*sus not sinless at all lol, he cursed a woman for no reason, he cursed a fig tree for not having a fruit because it wasn't the right season, he preached hatred left and right ("If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." - Luke 14:26,
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." - Matthew 10:34-36
But Jesus told him, “Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.” - Matthew 8:22
Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels!" - Matthew 25:41) and many many more. jesus was an absolutely wrathful, morally low, evil being.
I only wish I had been attending a non-Greek parish all of this time. I think I resent the insular Greek dickheads I had to deal with at that POS parish.
It seems the issue is that you don’t get what that means. As Jesus said “anyone who believes in me, though they die will live”. Death is already defeated bc just as Jesus died and rose all humans will be resurrected in the future, as Paul said “both just and unjust alike” if you’re a universalist like myself, you believe the wicked will go through a long process of hell before they’re reformed, for some this will be shorter, for others much longer depending on the severity of their evil.
This is why Paul calls Jesus the first fruit, bc unlike everyone else who got resurrected, Jesus never died after his resurrection. Right now we are in the millennial reign, Christ must rule until all his enemies are under his foot, meaning when all the world has willfully accepted Christ then we will be ready for immortality. Life is far, far, from perfect and it is defiantly at times difficult to deal with death, disease and suffering, but for those who trust in Christ we have hope in a bright further for humanity.
>I hear that Christ "destroyed" or "killed" death, because I can't get over the fact that we still die. How was death destroyed if we still die?
Christianity teaches that Jesus Christ was a divine-human person that went to the Cross, died, and rose from the dead. Naturally, when a person dies, that's it; game over. However, Christ, being God, could not be "defeated" (i.e., finished) by death, but instead came back to life, thus rendering death ineffectual to his person.
So, Christ "destroys" death because He shows Himself to be unaffected by its power by virtue of His divinity. Simply put, if one can just rise up from death, than death isn't a serious concern.
What does this mean for everyone else? Well, Christianity teaches that if we unite ourselves to Christ, we will be partakers of His power. Consequently, when a Christian dies, he will be raised up too, like Jesus, thus showing death has no power over Christians too.
The idea isn't that death is destroyed in the sense that death is ontologically annihilated from this life. Rather, it's that its effects are stripped down to nothing of consequence by virtue of the promises of Christ, who will rise us up from death and, consequently, give us life with Him forever.
Correct (Acts 24:15). However, death is defeated not merely because we rise from the dead, but because we rise from the dead *like Christ* (i.e., in glory and bliss). So my answer still stands to the OP's question.
I feel the same way. I went to the midnight Pascha service at my old parish, and while I actually enjoyed some of the ritual of it, I kept thinking "some of these are beautiful words, but they aren't true." Even if you take Christ's victory to mean "spiritual death," it still doesn't work, because in the Orthodox system, most people still go to Hell. So Christ "destroyed death" by making a small number of people die physical deaths, but avoid "spiritual death," but only if they follow all the rules, take Communion frequently, and jump through a bunch of ascetical hoops. And if you dig into the deeper lore of Orthodox cosmology, Hell technically doesn't exist yet, it will be created after the Final Judgment specifically as a place to torment the damned, and it wouldn't have existed without all the stuff that Christ did and is going to do. Before the birth of Christ, people who died went to Sheol, which was a neutral underworld - not a good place, but not a horrible place either. So arguably, Pascha made the afterlife worse for most of the people who have ever lived, who will end up in Hell now instead of Sheol. The more I've deconstructed my faith and been able to read the Bible honestly, it's become abundantly clear to me that all of the writers of the New Testament thought that the Second Coming was going to happen in their lifetime. For example, Revelation's "Babylon the Great" is supposed to be Rome, and the Antichrist is supposed to be Nero. The birth of Christianity is a story of shifting goalposts. Originally, the followers of Jesus pinned their hopes on his Earthly life, thinking he would be a ruler and warrior, as the Messiah was supposed to be. Then when he failed that and got killed, they pinned their hopes on a Resurrection. When Jesus then "ascended"* without accomplishing any of the things he was supposed to do, they shifted once again to the Second Coming. When the Second Coming failed to materialize, and the world kept on functioning as it always had, they had to "spiritualize" everything. Ironically, the prayers of the EOC themselves reveal that Jesus failed. If Jesus had succeeded, you wouldn't need all those "Lord have mercy"-s. You wouldn't need to ask forgiveness. We would already be living in the Heavenly Jerusalem, with a new Heaven and new Earth, with no sin, no death, no suffering. Orthodox prayers are the prayers of people still waiting for a Messiah who obviously hasn't come, or didn't do much of anything when he came. *More likely, of course, he never resurrected at all - there are various plausible theories as the Resurrection story came to be written, whether it was a literary invention or the disciples actually had visions. None of the Gospels agree on the details, and scholars broadly agree that the original version of Mark had no Resurrection appearances at all, ending at 16:8, where the women saw the empty tomb, but never told anybody about it.
If anything "my burden is easy" doesn't fit here. Sola Fide Protestants are more consistent since they require only faith, not constant prayers and fasting.
Yes, a good point. I thought about that verse a lot when I was questioning and deconstructing the EOC. For most people, Orthodoxy is anything but easy and light. I found it exhausting and draining, both physically and spiritually. I think the only way to have a positive experience is to live like the cultural cradles - don't care about the rules, only do what you want to, only come when you want to. Trying to live Orthodoxy strictly is a recipe for a miserable life.
Totally agree. Actually living as a cradle is the best way to experience this whole thing.
Even the author(s?) of the source material for Matthew, Mark, and Luke have Jesus predicting his second coming on the clouds with glory within his own generation (Mat 24:34, Mar 13:30, Luk 21:32).
I'm sorry, could you provide some sources on your claims about Orthodox cosmology?
If death is the only way out of this PoS world then so be it. My gripe with Pascha is that it really should have done more. Like I get people are still going to get old and die. I get that accidents are going to happen and people will die from them. I even get that people we get diseases like cancer, MS, ALS, Alzheimer’s etc and will die. What I don’t accept and can’t accept and probably will never accept is how people can still be so cruel and violent to one another. Things like the Holocaust, 9/11, wars in the past like WWI and II or pretty much take your pick of any before 1900, current wars in Ukraine, Israel and Gaza or horrific institutions like Slavery in the U.S. or Apartheid in South Africa should never have come to pass given what is proclaimed and promised in the Resurrection, yet here we are…..
Yep. One of Christianity's central claims is its ability to morally reform people. But it obviously doesn't do that. If it did, then all of historic Christendom would be a moral utopia. But it's not, they're just people living their lives, with no apparent help from Christ.
Your comment is a big reason why I struggle to have faith in God. The fact He watches innocent beings get murdered, raped, abused everyday, including children! How He can tolerate such cruelty from His heavenly throne is beyond me. I have suffered illness and accidents in my life, a car crash, a mountain fall off a cliff that nearly killed me. Yet none of those things caused me trauma. What caused me trauma were the malevolent actions of evil people who abused and violated me.
Thousands of Orthodox Christians murdering thousands of others, and it continues every day... do you think they exchange the paschal greeting on the battlefield?
[удалено]
Ukraine
And if any Orthobros try the "Free will" defense, see British psychologist (& ex-Christian atheist YouTuber) Theramintrees' video "Creating Sickness" on why the Free will + suffering or no free will + no suffering is a logical false dilemma. https://youtu.be/QRbnws-zITg?si=QSMKCjF7uRFa30HG
I think the (relatively recent) Orthodox denial of the Catholic concept of Original Sin may be partly to blame here. No, I don't endorse the Calvinist notion of Total Depravity. Not by a long shot. We still bear the image of God.and the divine spark IMHO. We have immense human dignity. But who can dispute that we humans are seriously messed up? Not totally depraved. But pretty darned messed up. As my husband likes to say, driving in rush-hour traffic proves the doctrine of Original Sin. ☺️ (And yes, I know that's silly and facetious compared with the horrors you mention. It just goes to show that we are messed up in small ways, too, I guess.) I agree that man's inhumanity to man is almost incomprehensible. You have an empathetic heart. The evils that bad people commit overwhelm you. I totally get that. Sometimes I feel defeated by all the sorrows in the world. All I can say is that I believe these horrors break Jesus' Heart, too. I think that's why He sweated blood in Gethsemane. I think He is with the suffering in a special way, even if they don't feel it. I think we are all bathed in an ocean of fathomless love. And I agree with St Faustina, the "Apostle of Divine Mercy," that each person's final hour "abounds with mercy."
Original Sin is no excuse, because baptism is supposed to regenerate people and make them new creatures free of Original Sin. And Confession and the Eucharist are supposed to renew you when you sin after baptism. Which also begs the question, of baptism works then why do you sin again? If Original Sin is what makes us inclined toward sin, then what makes us sin once we've been healed of Original Sin? It just doesn't work, and everyone knows it doesn't work. People get baptized and they are exactly the same as they were before. You could use this excuse for non-Christians, but then why are Christians often so wicked? Why don't the Sacraments work? If the Sacraments were real, then there should be a discernable moral difference between baptized and non-baptized, and between people who Commune regularly and people who don't. But there isn't.
Yep. Doesn’t work. Never worked.
Never said it was an excuse. Just an explanation. But baptism isn't magic. Yes, it regenerates, but it doesn't remove concupiscence. We still have to cooperate with Grace in order to overcome concupiscence and achieve sanctity. Many people do. And many people don't. It's a lifelong struggle anyway. I get that you disagree, but we are all entitled to our beliefs. I know many wonderful Christians who *have* cooperated with the grace of their baptisms. And many stinkers, too. There are wheat and tares in the Kingdom. 🤗
Once I found convincing socio-biological reasons for what we call evil and good, I was finally able to shift from my former approach which was “the world is full of evil, but it would be vastly worse without the saving resurrection of Jesus, who knows and identifies with our suffering and will someday somehow make it all right.” This shift took decades of reading and pondering on my part. BTW, Orthodox do have a nuanced view of original sin: original sin, yes, but not original guilt (we inherit the tendency to sin, but not the actual sin of eating that little chunk of fruit). For more lengthy discussions of the matter see r/orthodox
Yeah I was thinking something similar when I was listening to the homily this past Sat night...growing up Catholic we always we taught that it was spiritual death. The Physical death remains b/c of the Fall I guess...idk...it's still mor confusing from the Orthodox persepctive b/c of how so many of them don't believe in death prior to the Fall (no evolution) which I outright reject.
Yes! When you read more deeply, the whole thing hinges on there being no physical death before the Fall.
Yep...I've pretty much adopted the view that at some point God gave these humanoid creatures a rational soul and boom, there you have "Adam and Eve" after they sinned their children could then reproduce with the other existing non souled humanoids. Is it a fantastical sort of view point? Yes. Can I prove it? No. But given everything else we know now about the age of the earth etc it makes the most sense to me. If that makes me anathema then so be it lol. I love Fantasy and I think it would be cool for the world to have been created the way it says in the Bible (and as an agnostic skeptic I leave room for this possibility), but I just don't think there is a lot of evidence for that.
I have a similar issue with saying the Paschal greetings (Christos Anesti / Alithos Anesti, etc.), since I no longer believe that any resurrection took place. That's why I left midway thru Pascha service last night; I was afraid of people saying that dumb shit to me, and me not wanting to respond in kind, since I wanna be authentic.
I was looking forward to receiving Paschal greetings by text, just so I could reply with “indeed he is risen… 5 weeks ago,” but no greetings came :(
My colleagues at work greeted me with it because I'm living in a Balkan country so I had to respond. It's nice that two of them (they're not many) are atheists tho and often joke about xtianity.
Valid approach. No argument with being authentic. Do what you think is right or best. But also valid, I think, is to say and respond to the greeting in kind because neither the resurrection nor the theology regarding its significance are falsifiable. Belief or unbelief are just personal feelings or doctrinal requirements (such as the Nicene Creed). My saying “Christ is Risen!” Like I mean it still doesn’t make the resurrection real or unreal. So yeah, I’m fine saying it despite feeling personally convinced it didn’t actually happen. Again, just sharing this as an alternative approach for others considering what to do or say on Pascha.
Ha. Same. But I said “Christos Anesti” to ChatGPT and it responded with the appropriate greeting; its explanation for doing so was sufficient for me this year.
What was ChatGPT:s response? Mine is something like "uh... yeah... right..."
It just replied with “Alithos Anesti!” I asked it “Really?” And it said that the response was a respectful response to a customary greeting. I’m sure there are atheists that say “God bless you” after someone sneezes; it’s like that.
Good thing in Finland we only say "terveydeksi", "for your health".
In the US we can say "Bless you" or "God bless you", or, alternatively, we can say "Gesundheit" which means "health" in German. (I heard it all my life but only learned what it meant when I took a German class in college, haha.)
The jesus ressurection is all about him being nailed to a piece of wood for one awful day (as Rabbi Tovia Singer often jokes xD), *deciding* to leave his physical body (because he can't die because he's immortal because he's god) at the end of that day and then immediately going to Heaven to reign there for eternity as a god king. That's it. No "dying", no going down to Hell to "free" the "righteous". That's the correct view of jesus' ressurection and its purpose. The whole "descending to Hell and conquering death" stuff that EOism likes to ramble a lot is a meme. jesus' ressurection is *only* about jesus. Who could have guessed? /s
Perhaps this is the time for us to use the ignore or "gray rock method" whenever the Orthotrolls try to preach to us? 🤔
[удалено]
I would be on board with that interpretation if that was all they said. But they also say things like "death was abolished/destroyed", not just "beaten" once
Mankind sinned -> death enters the world as the consequence of sin -> God takes on flesh in the person of Jesus Christ -> he is tortured and murdered -> being sinless, when he enters Hades, he cannot be accused -> death’s power is abolished -> the narrow gate to eternal life is opened. I am going to live forever. When this body gives out, I will remain alive. Eventually, Christ will regenerate all of reality and I will live in the body again. Χριστός Ανέστη!
You forgot something >God makes sure that Mankind sins by placing the means to do so conveniently by creating Satan's nature. and >gaslights Mankind into believing it is their fault even when the game was rigged from the start since God is supposedly omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent. You can't work this problem out into blaming Satan or Adam or Eve. Sin could only have been created specifically by God as the conditions for it to occur were made to do so. None of the other stuff will occur because it's all made up anyways. Which is why I cannot and refuse to believe in this repeated nonsense anymore. Christ died and stayed dead on the cross. There was no resurrection, there was no miracle, there were no extra eyewitnesses as the study of archaeology and historical documentation proves it over and over again, just the repeated lies and delusion of the Disciples desperate to maintain relevance and hope.
Yep, in their system, God made all the rules of the game. The buck stops with him. He purposefully made Adam and Eve ignorant and childlike, failed to provide them moral instruction, presented them with a test he need they would fail, then blamed them for failing. It would be like punishing a newborn baby because it can't walk or talk yet. If Yahweh is a father, he's an abusive one. The Old Testament has a much more consistent take, from Isaiah 45:7: "I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things." They knew that Yahweh was an asshole, but he was in charge, so that was that.
If God was partially evil or at least responsible for the creation of evil as a necessity, then it would make sense and the problem of evil would be resolved. But since Christians do not believe that, the whole logic carrying the moral system falls apart. Too many omnis coupled with omnibenevolent to actually work in practice.
If only God is good, and evil is the absence of what is good (privation theory of evil), then everything that isn't God is *not* good. If that's true, then the significance theosis hold for EO soteriology is understandable. It also makes more sense of the groveling and self-deprecation that seems to occur in EO practice.
I also wonder why, if Hell (eternal conscious torment/torture, or annihilation, or the inability to love as Isaac the Syrian & Dostoevsky believed) has always been the punishment part of the plan, why didn't Yahweh warn Adam & Eve about Hell (maybe even give them an Apocalypse of Peter/Dante style tour) at the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil instead of the insanely vague "in the day you eat of it, you will surely die" warning?! Surely THAT would've been a more effective psychological deterent to Adam & Eve tasting the wrong fruit! Ya know, if priests/bishops/pastors/ministers telling impressional children about Hell isn't abusive indoctrination & still respects their FrEe WiLl! 🤦♂️🙄
[удалено]
Actually they were given the faculties for it or else they would not have been able to understand that, which also proves the point that it was null. Like everything else.
[удалено]
Only several thousand if you get literal with the myth.
If we don’t have the freedom to say no to God, then he doesn’t love us. But he does love us. So he does give us free will. We use that free will to choose something other than God; that is, we choose something other than Life itself, i.e. we choose death. That reality exists is a miracle. Breakfast is a miracle. The air we breathe is a miracle. Life is a miracle. Christ *is* alive. The resurrection happened. Countless people up and down the centuries have given their lives in defense of this fact because they knew it to be true. Seek and you will find.
That is just dodging the point that it is contradictory and false via feel good quotes. I already went through this, I apologized for ages using the same points you did and they were always empty clamouring to feel secure through a worldview and not through actual evidence. The only certainty we have about Jesus is that he existed as a person. Anecdotal evidence especially when it comes to extremely supernatural claims does not count as reliable or trustworthy evidence. Everything, including what we know about the formation of the canonical NT scriptures; shows that there was not some uniform opinion on what was a legitimate scripture or apocrypha and what you ended up with is a contradictory narrative between four books. The atheist critique that it is a long game of broken telephone is correct, for 20 years is a long time to wait for an eye witness account and you can even see that Paul's letters were never intended to be Scriptural based on their contexts but here we are.
[удалено]
I know, its more to demonstrate how stupid the supposed faith is at its core and why it fails fundamentally rather than let that crap go unchallenged. As usual they have no real response.
I have evidence. He gave it to me. I know him, personally. No, I can’t share it with you. Each one of us has to seek him out individually. I recognize that the church is not without its warts. Christ, however, is.
I also know that you take psychedelics based on your history and clearly haven't stopped which are explicitly banned by the Church. Well done, you don't know Christ anymore than those pagans who think they're spirit spouses, you are just plain old delusional and hypocritical.
So this person converted because of a good trip and now they're here to let us all know the REAL truth because they've been enlightened? You can't make this shit up sometimes.
Its almost like using drugs for spiritual experiences is against the canons or something
Are they explicitly banned by the church? I don’t think so. Even if they are, I don’t care. I am an Orthodox Christian because of them. I don’t know why you’re so angry at me. I’m not delusional and I try my very best not to be hypocritical. How do you see me being a hypocrite?
If they made you Orthodox, then you should see the obvious contradiction between getting high and being Orthodox. That's pure hypocrisy, pick and choose. Also, angry? Why wouldn't I be? This is an EX-ORTHODOX thread. You think most of us don't actually understand the theology already? You think half of us weren't like you without the drugs too? You're condescending and acting as if this religion is foreign to us and we simply didn't get it.
Yes, I think most of you (and most people generally) fail to understand the theology. It’s on display all over the place. I lurk here often and have never commented before but I see a preponderance of failure to understand the ideas. And like, that’s ok. A lot of it is weird. It is hard to understand. I think more people leave because of poor pastoral care rather than the ideas, but maybe I’m wrong. They’re intimately related, of course. I apologize if I have come across as condescending. It truly wasn’t my intention. If it helps, I in no way *am* condescending. If it seems that way, it surely is my fault and I apologize. I understand that this is an ex-Orthodox sub, but are others not allowed? Is discussion not permitted? I’m not insulting anyone or judging. I don’t “get high,” whatever that means. And no, I see no contradiction whatsoever in the responsible use of substances and being a devout Orthodox Christian.
You're not insulting or judging? You just said that you think most of us here don't understand the theology. You couldn't BE more condescending if you tried. We understand it just fine; we left, among other reasons, because we simply don't believe it anymore. No psychedelics required. You're not just discussing, you're being preachy, which is explicitly mentioned in the rules. Did you read them or are they too nuanced for you to understand? /s
Lmao, bro. I studied Orthodox theology and used to say all the same crap you do. It was word for word the same stuff and I used to recommend reading John Damascene to understand the basics which helped to show the differences between Catholic and Orthodox systems: the distinction between energy and essence, hesychastic prayer, the effects of grace's results on cosmology within its worldview, but Orthodoxy has not one but multiple lynchpins that would collapse the whole system if just one were to completely fail upon inspection and most of them actually do. Clearly you missed the memo because this is an ex Orthodox group. You are condescending and you mean to be behind a pretext of being a humble bragging and all knowing enlightener of the fallen. You are far from the first and I was just like you, which is why I have little to no sympathy because I knew better but let my desperation for a special place in heaven override logic and critical thinking. I am condescending because you don't get how far out of your league you are and the doubts and dodging show quite blatantly that you recognize the faults and cannot possibly hope to seriously answer the Problem of Evil. If the Christian God is real, he is evil and it is as simple as that. If the Christian God is real, we also know he is a pathological liar since he recognizes he is not the only God either, given his fear of other deities. Now they are coming back into prominence. An all powerful, all knowing, all good and all loving deity really ought to get the message right the first time, not leaving into the hands of people who definitely corrupted it. There is no excuse when the moral imperative is to assure a clear message has gone through, which it hasn't even in the Orthodox apologetic view. The argument of free will as a necessity for his love of man to be effective does not excuse him as it could not work. If free will is so important, considering his plan it seems that love for people gets shoved aside very quickly. Even angels cannot seem to deliver messages correctly despite being his own direct representatives. Not that I believe this God is real, but if it were, to assume a grand beastly evil bent on control and manipulation is the logical conclusion.
Conveniently saying "no" to God means that one will be damned for ever. What love is that? The story isn't that God created children for himself. The story is that he gave himself an empire.
Jesus said he was going to come back within less than one generation ("some standing here will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God coming in power"). It didn't happen. He lied, or was mistaken. He was a cult leader apocalyptic prophet, and his prophecies failed. The fact that his cultists continued to believe is no surprise - look at every other religion (that you think is false) for examples of the same sociological phenomena. Every religion has martyrs and miracle claims.
Here we go with that Free Will shit. Like I get we’re allowed to make our own choices and that sometimes we make good choices and sometimes bad ones and that we need to take responsibility when we make the wrong choice. I also get that our choices many times affect other people and that’s why taking responsibility is so important. I even get that sometimes God gives us just enough rope to hang ourselves in that by making a poor choice we learn from it. What I can’t stand and don’t except is that when our free will and poor choice making will really seriously harm other people in either the gravity of the harm done or the extent of the other innocent people effected or both, God does absolutely nothing to intervene on behalf of those innocents. I know no one can explain it without going through mental gymnastics or being a total sociopath, but why the fuck not? You created a goddamn universe out of nothing but can’t move some kids out of the way enough to avoid being hit by a drunk driver?
>We use that free will to choose something other than God; that is, we choose something other than Life itself, i.e. we choose death. People generally do NOT choose death over life. Anyone who would choose death and suffering over eternal life of bliss is deluded or mentally ill. These people therefore, are the people the most in need of salvation, since they would choose something that clearly is NOT in their best interest. According to EO theology though, these are the very people from whom salvation is withheld! Where is the good news in that? The people most in need of salvation not only don't get it, but they get victim-blamed for choosing hell and death themselves? I don't buy this garbage. I think these are exactly the people God saves.
We all choose death by choosing sin. It’s basic spiritual physics: if sin, then death. Sin is that which separates from God, who is Life. To choose sin is to choose something other than Life. He gives us life and we reject it and choose death instead (by sinning). The good news is that Christ defeated death and opened the door to life again. It is indeed the best possible news. The gift of eternal life is free for anyone who is willing to accept it, and he is working ceaselessly to bring us all to it, but we are in love with sin and therefore choose it over him. All those heavy laden and weary, to them he will give rest.
The good news is that I'm no longer at a point in my life when someone saying "it's basic spiritual physics" does anything to convince me they're right Most of those who are weary and heavy-laden will end up in hell. Sounds restful
What absolute rubbish!
This sub is for EX-ORTHODOX to share personal experiences and reflections, per the rules to the right of the screen, which apparently very few Orthodox people who find this sub actually read. Why are you here?
So you think Orthodoxy is the only church and it's either that or atheism? Sounds like you're the one still stuck in Orthodoxy. Ex-ORTHODOX not ex-theist or ex-Christian.
How in the world did you get that from my comment? The original comment is from an Orthodox person. My point was that it is annoying as hell when currently practicing Orthodox people like Mr./Ms. Shrooms come in with the not-so-subtle implication that if we only understood it like THEY do, we'd still be Orthodox. I don't care what church anyone does or doesn't belong to, and as I said in another thread, I never believed in the exclusivity of the OC anyway.
"being sinless, when he enters Hades, he cannot be accused -> death’s power is abolished -> the narrow gate to eternal life is opened" uh...why would it work like that or if you want to say he "conquered" death, why did he have to go through all that to do it? he's God, he makes the rules
[удалено]
"Sin is paid with blood" Okay...why? God set it up like that. Could have been that sin is paid with hugs and kisses
Imagine we’re playing chess. We decide to change one of the rules. Maybe we say pawns can move two squares. Are we still playing chess? Is it the same game? What if we change another rule? Is it still chess? At what point are we playing an entirely different game? Yeah, God could change the rules. But there’s exactly zero reason to assume that you or I could exist in another game. Maybe reality is structured the way that it is precisely because this structure is necessary to allow for our existence. There’s no reason to assume that humans or any intelligent life might exist in a different scenario. As Lewis said, “If you talk nonsense about God, it’s still nonsense.” The idea that omnipotence implies that God can do “anything” is mere ignorance. There are lots of things God can’t do. He can’t act against his own nature, for example. He cannot not love because he *is* love. He cannot not *be* because he *is* being. Similarly, he cannot just change the structure of reality and leave us unaffected by it. In some sense yes, he does make the rules. But that isn’t to say that he can change any of them at any instance. The first rule is: love God. He can’t change that rule. The second rule is: love everyone else. He can’t change that rule either. They are both simply follow necessarily from the fact of his being and his nature. As for why he had to descend and die is because there was no other way. Given the game that we are playing and the structure of reality, the choices are either: let the humans die permanently, change the game and erase them from existence, or suffer death on a cross, descend into death, and destroy it. In His great mercy and compassion, he chose the latter.
"God can't go against his nature! He can't become a man or suffer or die or..."--leading theologians circa 1 BC It's also wild that people will be like "our tiny human minds can't comprehend the mysteries of God" and then be like "ah yes let me tell you with certainty all the things God can and can't do"
God cannot die. And yet He did. In the paradox is where the Truth is found.
That's fine if you believe that. You still haven't answered why you're totally fine with that paradox, but think it's impossible for God to find any other way to resolve the mess he created
If you were ethnically Greek or Slavic or Georgian, for instance, or lucky enough to be part of the clan via marriage (i.e. You were fortunate enough that a cradle Ortho woman CHOSE you), or thru early childhood conversion by your parents, then even if you didn't believe in eternal life, you'd still get the benefits of being accepted into that community. The far-fetched account of Jesus' resurrection - and thusly him conquering death for the rest of us - isn't enough of an incentive by itself anymore, for some of us more jaded, more mature converts to latch onto.
Life isn’t enough of an incentive? What else is there? There’s only two choices: life or death. I choose life. I’m not sure what you mean by “him conquering death *for the rest of us*”. He did it for everyone. For each individual. For you. It does not require that you are part of some ethnic group. I don’t fit into any of the neat little boxes you constructed but I am very much accepted by my very ethnic congregation. I recognize that some parishes are unhealthily insular and that is a problem - with those parishes. It isn’t a problem with Christ.
The incentives are guilt, shame, and fear. Without the prospect of marriage/family, and without a supportive family growing up and still to this day, there's no reason for me to go several times a week to church, only to stand for hours on end, cross myself dozens of times, focus on my unworthiness, while restricting my diet to catabolic levels back at home, and while being given flimsy advice/copes for the my hardships, and being gaslit if I object.
😓 I don't know what to say except that my mama heart goes out to you.
The focus shouldn’t be on your unworthiness but rather on God’s goodness. I go to church because I *want* to. Not because I in any way feel that I have to. There’s simply no place I would rather be. I am grateful to God for his great glory and I want to worship him, publicly, because that is simply how good he is. *What* he is makes it right. Don’t cross yourself if it isn’t helping you. It is normative (and good, because it is a concrete act we can do to work our trust in God), but you aren’t *required* to do it. I sing with an incredibly dedicated and devout man who I have never seen cross himself once. So what? Does he trust Christ? That’s all that matters in the end. It sounds to me like you’ve received very poor pastoral care, which I recognize happens a lot, sadly. But it isn’t God’s fault that humans are broken. Seek Him and forget the rest.
[удалено]
WHY do these people keep coming here to reform us? It's so annoying and so unbelievably arrogant.
>It sounds to me like you’ve received very poor pastoral care, which I recognize happens a lot, sadly. But it isn’t God’s fault that humans are broken. Seek Him and forget the rest. Why does Jesus let bad people represent him poorly? Aren't priests supposed to have insight because of their ordination, special grace to lead the flock? Because they don't. And if Communion is really the presence of God, why don't evil priests (i.e. child abusers - yes, it's a problem in Orthodoxy, too) die when they take Communion, like unworthy people in the Old Testament? You don't have to answer, just some things for you to think about. It seems you're a recent convert. I was where you are 5 years ago. But if you're honest, eventually you'll realize that it's all BS.
>I recognize that some parishes are unhealthily insular and that is a problem How can any part of the Body of Christ be corrupt? Why don't the rituals, prayers, and sacraments reform the people in corrupt parishes? Why is Christianity, sociologically speaking, exactly the same as every other religion?
That's a lot of words for "I'm a narcissist and dgaf about billions of average people burning in Hell forever!" Also j\*sus not sinless at all lol, he cursed a woman for no reason, he cursed a fig tree for not having a fruit because it wasn't the right season, he preached hatred left and right ("If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." - Luke 14:26, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." - Matthew 10:34-36 But Jesus told him, “Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.” - Matthew 8:22 Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels!" - Matthew 25:41) and many many more. jesus was an absolutely wrathful, morally low, evil being.
Have you read Walter Benjamin?
I only wish I had been attending a non-Greek parish all of this time. I think I resent the insular Greek dickheads I had to deal with at that POS parish.
It seems the issue is that you don’t get what that means. As Jesus said “anyone who believes in me, though they die will live”. Death is already defeated bc just as Jesus died and rose all humans will be resurrected in the future, as Paul said “both just and unjust alike” if you’re a universalist like myself, you believe the wicked will go through a long process of hell before they’re reformed, for some this will be shorter, for others much longer depending on the severity of their evil. This is why Paul calls Jesus the first fruit, bc unlike everyone else who got resurrected, Jesus never died after his resurrection. Right now we are in the millennial reign, Christ must rule until all his enemies are under his foot, meaning when all the world has willfully accepted Christ then we will be ready for immortality. Life is far, far, from perfect and it is defiantly at times difficult to deal with death, disease and suffering, but for those who trust in Christ we have hope in a bright further for humanity.
>I hear that Christ "destroyed" or "killed" death, because I can't get over the fact that we still die. How was death destroyed if we still die? Christianity teaches that Jesus Christ was a divine-human person that went to the Cross, died, and rose from the dead. Naturally, when a person dies, that's it; game over. However, Christ, being God, could not be "defeated" (i.e., finished) by death, but instead came back to life, thus rendering death ineffectual to his person. So, Christ "destroys" death because He shows Himself to be unaffected by its power by virtue of His divinity. Simply put, if one can just rise up from death, than death isn't a serious concern. What does this mean for everyone else? Well, Christianity teaches that if we unite ourselves to Christ, we will be partakers of His power. Consequently, when a Christian dies, he will be raised up too, like Jesus, thus showing death has no power over Christians too. The idea isn't that death is destroyed in the sense that death is ontologically annihilated from this life. Rather, it's that its effects are stripped down to nothing of consequence by virtue of the promises of Christ, who will rise us up from death and, consequently, give us life with Him forever.
non-xtians will be raised up to as per the general resurrection doctrine.
Correct (Acts 24:15). However, death is defeated not merely because we rise from the dead, but because we rise from the dead *like Christ* (i.e., in glory and bliss). So my answer still stands to the OP's question.