Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

81 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 12/20/2009 6:33 AM (GMT -6)

It's common in Orthodox circles to exclude God from the set of all "existent beings" as if God's existence is just another (albeit far superior) instantiation of the sort of 'being' that creatures instantiate. So it's said that God is outside of "being" itself, that "being" proceeds from him along with created entities. The concern is to avoid "counting" God as among the set of "things" that participate in "being." This is at the heart of apophatic theology...of extrapolating truth about God from denying this or that feature of creaturely existence to him.

I can appreciate the concern of course. But this whole attempt is fraught with problems, and the Fathers recognized how thin was the edge of the sword they straddled. For they also wanted to say the eternal divine Logos really did enter the created realm, and really did assume a human nature through which he really experienced the world. In fact, the Son, they said, was "homoousion" with us, right?

So the difficult is there. On the one hand God (or divine being/existence) is NOT just a unique, one-of-a-kind instance of the the being/existence which we instantiate. But on the other hand, this same God is homooouios with created being. It's difficult to say God, in Christ, is homo-ousion with created being AND that the being which is homo-ousion with us is CATEGORICALLY OTHER than us.

I agree that we don't want to say God is just another countable instance of a general sort of "being" that he instantiates uniquely (in divine ways) and we instantiate commonly (in created ways). BUT I'm not sure how to phrase this and still say that this same God is homo-ousion with created human being, and the 'homo-ousion' isn't just an analogy. It's the concrete experience by God of the created order of things. Plus, we bear God's image.

So I'm not sure what it ever MEANS to say the God whose image we bear and with whom we are homo-ousion (in Christ, via the PERSON of Christ) is CATEGORICALLY OTHER than us.

Tom

"Man is a person not by nature but by spirit. By nature he is only an individual." Nicolas Berdyaev

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 12/20/2009 6:46 AM (GMT -6)

In other words, D...Greg's claim that the difference between divine and created being is just surpassability of beauty and limitation of perspective is something Orthodoxy would definitely reject as bringing God and the world too close. That can't be the essential difference between God and the world since that places both under the same overarching category of "being" (or at least places US under a hierarchy of being the most supreme instance of which is God). Another way to express this would be to say that Orthodoxy would reject Whitehead's key hermeneutical claim, that God is the chief exemplification of all rational principles (or values), would be rejected by Orthodoxy as bringing God within the created realm. No, they'd say. God doesn't fall up under ANY category. All our language is at best an analogical pointing in the direction of God. Actually, I don't know how our experience of God can be real or our language even point in God's general direction IF it's the case that God is absolutely other, i.e., outside ALL our categories. If he's outside ALL our categories, he no more or less to be indicated in 'this' direction over 'that' direction.

In the end, we're not JUST rediscovering Orthodoxy. We're reconstructing.

Tom

"Man is a person not by nature but by spirit. By nature he is only an individual." Nicolas Berdyaev

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 12/20/2009 9:36 AM (GMT -6)

BTW, D, do you have Paul Gavrilyuk's The Suffering of the Impassible God?

Wow.

T

"Man is a person not by nature but by spirit. By nature he is only an individual." Nicolas Berdyaev

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 12/20/2009 9:48 AM (GMT -6)

Looks good...

I. D. G. A. F.

Christ is All.

"God resists the proud, and give His grace to the humble."

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 12/20/2009 10:19 AM (GMT -6)

Seems like some form of apophatism is pretty standard in all the religions.

What I see, more than anything else, is a method of cognition that opens one to transcend the human mind (transcending the dianoia, or discursive reasoning aspect of human consciousness).

This is what happens in hesychastic "stillness"

In other words, talking about God's transcendence in such a way seems more of a TOOL for "unknowing" linked to acheiving the Divine Vision...not necessarily trying to make explicitly metaphysical statements.

I. D. G. A. F.

Christ is All.

"God resists the proud, and give His grace to the humble."

Post Edited (One Love) : 12/20/2009 9:23:57 AM (GMT-6)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 12/20/2009 10:22 AM (GMT -6)

You can download the whole book. It's good so far. But Greg (ehem) was frustrated with it. ;o)

If you check your hotmail, you'll see Greg's last email.

It's becoming increasingly difficult for me to believe that ALLLLLLLLLL the Fathers were duped by pagan philosophy and just up and exchanged the Biblical God for Plotinus' One. But I DO think that in appropriating Hellenisitic language to express their faith they were not always successful in baptizing the 'concepts' and so riding their thinking of pagan influence. Greg sees it more as an all or nothing type deal. I'm happy to see the Fathers as a mixed bag and to appropriate the language of 'apetheia' in legitimate ways that honor everything the Bible says about God.

Tom

"Man is a person not by nature but by spirit. By nature he is only an individual." Nicolas Berdyaev

Post Edited (Tom) : 12/20/2009 9:28:57 AM (GMT-6)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 12/20/2009 10:28 AM (GMT -6)

Another thought: Can God be "categorically other" than something we would call "consciousness" ? What I mean is this: Is God "categorically other" than self-relational? (This would include self-knowledge)

What's wrong with saying that there is an "infinitely qualitative difference" (SK) between uncreated consciousness and created consciousness that can be truly "bridged" ONLY by love (within the "inner heart")...and leaving it with that?

I. D. G. A. F.

Christ is All.

"God resists the proud, and give His grace to the humble."

Post Edited (One Love) : 12/20/2009 9:32:49 AM (GMT-6)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 12/20/2009 10:31 AM (GMT -6)

If you go with the standard EO line (which is in every other email of Behr's), God is outside all our categories, period. Totally and utterly and indescribably other. Even saying that he's "other" isn't true because "otherness" is one of OUR categories.

I just don't know what we're supposed to gain from this.

T

"Man is a person not by nature but by spirit. By nature he is only an individual." Nicolas Berdyaev

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 12/20/2009 10:34 AM (GMT -6)

Tom:
If you go with the standard EO line (which is in every other email of Behr's), God is outside all our categories, period. Totally and utterly and indescribably other. Even saying that he's "other" isn't true because "otherness" is one of OUR categories.

I just don't know what we're supposed to gain from this.

I'm tellin' ya. I think it's a simple as this: If we have a heuristic that BY DEFINITION, says that God is outside of all of our categories, then it FORCES THE ISSUE of "unknowing." We automatically KNOW that it's futile to try to reach Ultimate Reality with the extremities of human reason.

EO is thoroughly and unchangably MYSTICAL, dawg. Maximus was a main person talking about apophasis. But wouldn't that make sense? He was a MYSTIC.

I. D. G. A. F.

Christ is All.

"God resists the proud, and give His grace to the humble."

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 12/20/2009 10:35 AM (GMT -6)

How can we bear the image of such a God? How could such a God incarnate and be homo-ousios with us?

Just dudn't work. I'm happy to say our language doesn't "box" in God to "comprehend" him in the sense of capturing God or reducing him to our expressions.

So what do you do with Greg's description of the difference between divine and created being now? That's been a slogan for you. But all that gets washed out now.

Tom

"Man is a person not by nature but by spirit. By nature he is only an individual." Nicolas Berdyaev

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 12/20/2009 10:38 AM (GMT -6)

So basically all it means is being humble enough to say that our language can never fully "contain" God, nor can it fully "communicate" what is more fundamental and real than language, and that's theologia...the experience of God. Beauty can be experienced but is ineffable. God...the REAL God, IS experienced, but no LANGUAGE can communicate or contain this.

Fine.

I just wouldn't feel the need in any of this to say God doesn't "exist" (which radical apophaticism says).

T

"Man is a person not by nature but by spirit. By nature he is only an individual." Nicolas Berdyaev

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 12/20/2009 10:40 AM (GMT -6)

Tom:
So what do you do with Greg's description of the difference between divine and created being now? That's been a slogan for you. But all that gets washed out now.

Not really, I don't think. If we are talking about the "uncreated light" that grounds all created being, then we can talk about how the uncreated light IS inherently infinite and eternal...and how created being is neither of those things. Difference between infinitude and finitude...which IS in line with Greg's stuff.

I'd use Gregory Palamas on that one. EO's ain't gonna deny the Uncreated Light idea...

Hesychasm, baby.

I. D. G. A. F.

Christ is All.

"God resists the proud, and give His grace to the humble."

Post Edited (One Love) : 12/20/2009 9:46:34 AM (GMT-6)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 12/20/2009 10:42 AM (GMT -6)

Tom:
So basically all it means is being humble enough to say that our language can never fully "contain" God, nor can it fully "communicate" what is more fundamental and real than language, and that's theologia...the experience of God. Beauty can be experienced but is ineffable. God...the REAL God, IS experienced, but no LANGUAGE can communicate or contain this.

Yeppers. Exactamundo.

"No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him"

*****************************

Tom:
I just wouldn't feel the need in any of this to say God doesn't "exist" (which radical apophaticism says).

Possibly overemphasis to make the point, I'd say.

I. D. G. A. F.

Christ is All.

"God resists the proud, and give His grace to the humble."

Post Edited (One Love) : 12/20/2009 9:49:33 AM (GMT-6)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 12/20/2009 10:49 AM (GMT -6)

Dude, I can't believe that this HUGE patristic theme is just an emphasis to make a point. I'm like, so just make your point. SAY it, i.e., say "be humble and remember that whatever we say about God is provisional and limited even though our experience of him is real and genuine." I'm mean come on. They were smart guys. THey can't just say that? But they go on and on and on in philosophical terms. I'm like, dude, if you're reeeeally experiencing God that deeply, a) you don't have time to write much, and b) when you do write, you wouldn't tell people not to get so philosophical about God in such philosophical terms!

Ha.

"Man is a person not by nature but by spirit. By nature he is only an individual." Nicolas Berdyaev

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 12/20/2009 10:50 AM (GMT -6)

Just like SK writing his tomes of stuff...talking AGAINST intellectual "sagacity."

Heh.

I. D. G. A. F.

Christ is All.

"God resists the proud, and give His grace to the humble."

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 12/20/2009 10:51 AM (GMT -6)

I'm gonna write Behr and summarize my perception of patristics in these words:

"Probably just overemphasis to make a point."

Crazy!

"Man is a person not by nature but by spirit. By nature he is only an individual." Nicolas Berdyaev

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 12/20/2009 10:52 AM (GMT -6)

Tom:
Dude, I can't believe that this HUGE patristic theme is just an emphasis to make a point.

I can. It's a LOT MORE than simple epistemological humility. It's actually EMPTYING THE MIND and stilling the heart, by moving away from all mental categories. Seriously.

I. D. G. A. F.

Christ is All.

"God resists the proud, and give His grace to the humble."

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 12/20/2009 10:54 AM (GMT -6)

While he maintains his practice of the Jesus Prayer, which becomes automatic and continues twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, the Hesychast cultivates watchful attention (Gr. nepsis). Sobriety contributes to this mental askesis described above that rejects tempting thoughts; it puts a great emphasis on focus and attention. The Hesychast is to pay extreme attention to the consciousness of his inner world and to the words of the Jesus Prayer, not letting his mind wander in any way at all.

The Hesychast is to attach Eros (Gr. eros), that is, "yearning", to his practice of sobriety so as to overcome the temptation to acedia (sloth). He is also to use an extremely directed and controlled anger against the tempting thoughts, although to obliterate them entirely he is to invoke Jesus Christ via the Jesus Prayer.

The Hesychast is to bring his mind (Gr. nous) into his heart so as to practise both the Jesus Prayer and sobriety with his mind in his heart. The descent of the mind into the heart is taken quite literally by the practitioners of Hesychasm and is not at all considered to be a metaphorical expression. Some of the psychophysical techniques described in the texts are to assist the descent of the mind into the heart at those times that only with difficulty it descends on its own.

The goal at this stage is a practice of the Jesus Prayer with the mind in the heart, which practice is free of images (see Pros Theodoulon). What this means is that by the exercise of sobriety (the mental ascesis against tempting thoughts), the Hesychast arrives at a continual practice of the Jesus Prayer with his mind in his heart and where his consciousness is no longer encumbered by the spontaneous inception of images: his mind has a certain stillness and emptiness that is punctuated only by the eternal repetition of the Jesus Prayer.

This...

Is...

Real...

I. D. G. A. F.

Christ is All.

"God resists the proud, and give His grace to the humble."

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 12/20/2009 10:57 AM (GMT -6)

Tom:
I'm gonna write Behr and summarize my perception of patristics in these words:

"Probably just overemphasis to make a point."

Crazy!

Write Behr and ask him about the relationship of apophaticism...to "nepsis" and "theoria"

Maybe that'll do it.

I. D. G. A. F.

Christ is All.

"God resists the proud, and give His grace to the humble."

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 12/20/2009 11:07 AM (GMT -6)

Thought:

Given what is said about the Jesus Prayer and hesychasm, doesn't it make SENSE to say "Lord, have mercy" 50 times in a service?

Yeah.

Why?

Cause it's HELPFUL PRACTICE for what we should be doing already. (Praying continually...)

It's still funny to me. I can believe (and try to live) all this stuff...but to the EO, I'm a "Christian" who's not a member of the True Church.

No Body and Blood of Christ for me when I go to the Liturgy next time.

Hmm...oh well, Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

I. D. G. A. F.

Christ is All.

"God resists the proud, and give His grace to the humble."

Post Edited (One Love) : 12/20/2009 10:14:00 AM (GMT-6)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 12/20/2009 1:33 PM (GMT -6)

That's crazy man. A real Christian who's not a member of the true Church. Craziness.

T

"Man is a person not by nature but by spirit. By nature he is only an individual." Nicolas Berdyaev

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/20/2009 6:21 PM (GMT -6)

My small logic...

Why should I assume that God is totally other in some respects and not in others.

Why don't I often-er and better recognize and reflect the revelation that God does give -- and while I'm at it, do I play favorites as to respects of those too???

;p

me-o-me-o

(o)

Asher
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477

Posted 12/20/2009 9:34 PM (GMT -6)

Yep, Tom...

...that's THE big problem separating me from just about every tradition.

They all have an inadequate view of man.

To approach unto God they insist that man must become not-man, that he must "transcend" his manness. He must turn off all normal ways of knowing. Empty his mind.

Where in man is the image of God? What about man is constituent of us being in the image of God? And to me, mind is an essential part of that image...not the entirety of that image...but take away mind and you take away the image of God.

They say that to give God glory an essential aspect is to empty man. And I think that that does justice neither to God nor man.

It does become confusing...because there IS something about himself that man must transcend. But once he has transcended...he is still man. There is a qualitative difference, but not a categorical difference. The mystics want a categorical difference. The mystics cannot stand man as man. And since man is in the image of God and has his being through the good will of God...there is something about God that the mystics cannot stand. Not explicitly...indeed, they probably deny my God is their God...Maybe.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 12/20/2009 11:06 PM (GMT -6)

Asher:
It does become confusing...because there IS something about himself that man must transcend. But once he has transcended...he is still man. There is a qualitative difference, but not a categorical difference. The mystics want a categorical difference. The mystics cannot stand man as man. And since man is in the image of God and has his being through the good will of God...there is something about God that the mystics cannot stand.

Mad love, bro...but I think this is inaccurate. Christian mysticism is based solely upon Christ being God AND Man. Just check them out. No, they don't get off of denying humanity as such. No, it's much more about being "transparent" to the kenotic loving reality that is God.

Christian mysticism is NOT a form of self-negating misantropy.

I. D. G. A. F.

Christ is All.

"God resists the proud, and give His grace to the humble."

Post Edited (One Love) : 12/20/2009 10:16:22 PM (GMT-6)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 12/20/2009 11:08 PM (GMT -6)

Something else. The mind is transcended but never eliminated in true humanity. Just like the ego (a formation of mind) is transcended in Divine Presence, but never eliminated in true humanity.

Again, the "self-emptying" humans do before God is not some type of misanthropic self-renunciation that denounces man as such. Nope. It's demonstration of God's reality working in us.

I. D. G. A. F.

Christ is All.

"God resists the proud, and give His grace to the humble."

Post Edited (One Love) : 12/20/2009 10:17:54 PM (GMT-6)

81 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:05 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual