Not one of these proofs, based on the philosophy of Aristotle, will be able to convince a non-believer of the existence of God. This is precisely why the Patristic theology of the Eastern Church in the first millennium (and after it, Orthodox theology in the second millenium)) refrained from making attempts to prove God's existence with the help of rational arguments and logic problems. As St. Maximus the Confessor maintains, God's being is perceived by faith, and this faith is "more worthy than any piece of evidence", inasmuch as it is true knowledge "exceeding both thought and reason".
Some Orthodox authors of more recent times have used rational proofs of God's existence borrowed from Western scholasticism, in academia or for apologetic purposes, though such proofs were alien and unnecessary for the ancient theological intuition of the Eastern Church. Rejecting them or refraining from them, Orthodox tradition is based on the idea that rational acknowledgement of God's existence is not at all identical to faith in God, for faith is an experiential knowledge of God, and such an encounter is generally impossible by way of rational knowledge. Religious experience transcends reason, and its expression demands another means aside from utilizing philosophic discourse.
Some Orthodox authors of more recent times have used rational proofs of God's existence borrowed from Western scholasticism, in academia or for apologetic purposes, though such proofs were alien and unnecessary for the ancient theological intuition of the Eastern Church. Rejecting them or refraining from them, Orthodox tradition is based on the idea that rational acknowledgement of God's existence is not at all identical to faith in God, for faith is an experiential knowledge of God, and such an encounter is generally impossible by way of rational knowledge. Religious experience transcends reason, and its expression demands another means aside from utilizing philosophic discourse.
In Orthodox tradition the very understanding of " theology" is least of all linked to rational thought, and theology is not perceived as a science, as an abstract theorization. The theologians of the ancient Church were not men who sat behind a desk surrounded by books, dictionaries, reference books and academic textbooks. The overwhelming majority of Church Fathers were bishops or monks: they either actively studied Church functions or worked in a Monastery. Their theology was born from an inner mystical, enriching experience, coming into contact with the Church tradition through the liturgical services, prayer, the reading of Scripture, and relationships with the people of God. The classical formulation of Evagrius of Pontus (Fourth century), says: If you are a theologian, then you will pray sincerely, and if you pray sincerely, then you are a theologian". In this definition the border between theology and knowledge of God, between theology and prayerful experience, fades away completely: theology is not what is other, but like an experience of a mystical encounter with God in prayer, it is an experience of a relationship with God.
Concerning theology as an experiential encounter with the Living God, V. N. Lossky writes in his Mystical Theology of the Eastern Churches:
God is not a scientific subject, and theology differs from philosophical thought in radical forms: a theologian does not seek God as one researches any other subject, but God himself takes possession of the theologian, just as another's personality can seize control of us. This is exactly why God first found the theologian, exactly why God went out to meet him in his revelation, so that it would seem possible to seek God as we all search for our own existence, and consequently for our mind, for any kind of presence. The God of theology-this "you", is the Living God of the Bible. Of course, this is the Absolute, but a personal Absolute, whom we call " you" in prayer.
>>908117
>Latin church attempts to be intelligent about it
>Orthodox church on the other hand actually praises and endorses stupidity
oh ok lol
>>908135
You're right, we should spent 300 posts arguing about a topic that is, according to OP, literally unarguable.
Moron.
>>908117
I don't know how orthodox people can call themselves christians.
They don't even prosletyze, they're basically jews.
>>908141
Their argument is that proselytizing is rude, and not what Jesus called for, and EVANGELIZATION (via not spreading the gospel, but being "nice") is what you do.
>>908152
>and EVANGELIZATION (via not spreading the gospel, but being "nice") is what you do.
It clearly doesn't work. How many people were converted because of that? Almost nothing compared to the alternative.
>>908160
Never said it worked, just saying what their response is
I'd say that regardless of whether or not it works scripture is strongly against the idea that you shouldn't proselytize.
>>908152
No dumbass, the argument was that they had fucking shitskins and marxfags stopping them
>>908168
No
Orthodox will regularly say that proselytizing is wrong
Don't shitpost about things you don't know what you're talking about
And even with the excuse you gave the Orthodox had plenty of time to evangelize without "shitskins and marxfags stopping them"
I'm not even going to read all that shit since I'm on a phone, but even if divinity was real, an atheist mindset would completely deny its spirituality and claim that it was science. No matter what is shown they will believe it's explainable by science so it's useless to try and convert them. They literally don't have the brain for it.
They believe that science is fact and not a language which is the biggest problem. Science is a way of measuring, predicting and creating, but does not explain the nature of anything in the slightest.
>Not one of these proofs, based on the philosophy of Aristotle, will be able to convince a non-believer of the existence of God.
Well firstly it converted people like Edward Feser and secondly you are missing the point, Aquinas work in that area wasn't designed to convert people but to demonstrate that Christianity is not hostile to reason and logic. This has a side effect of allowing people to be more open to Christian thought..
You shit all over Aquinas, but it is his work and that of the scholastics that will rescue the world from this soulless atheism. Indeed it is the fawning over mysticism that has caused the people where it is dominant to be vastly more superstitious.
Orthodoxy has manifestly failed in its duty to spread the Gospel and message of Jesus Christ indeed it is rather telling that all the countries were Orthodoxy was established were done contrary to the methods being suggested in this thread.
>>908117
Have you read any of Fesers books on Aquinas?
>>908228
The point is that very very few people have that kind of mindset. The fall of scholastics lead to a situation where the only options for most people seem to be fideism or logic - a false and damaging dichotomy
>>908241
I bought it off Amazon and haven't started it yet (not OP btw). How is it?
>>908260
Which one specifically?
>>908271
Aquinas a Beginner's Guide
Sorry I thought you specified that one
>>908285
I havent personally read that one, but thats the most serious of his beginners works and probably the better of the two if vitriol hampers your reading experience.
>>908286
What do you mean vitriol?
>>908160
>How many people were converted because of that?
Most of the Roman Empire?
>>908290
No
Most of the Roman Empire was converted after the Emperors were
Christians prior to this proselytized
>>908288
Have you read any of Hitchens or Dawkins works on Christianity? Whilst not as bad they are you still get that same hypocritical bigoted condescension and smugness creeping into his work the last superstition.
>>908304
Can you give me an example?
>>908338
I dont have the book on me to give an exact example but Im sure if you hit the amazon or goodreads reviews at the lower end you will find some people who got russled and quoted those parts.
Its not bad enough to bin him, but it can be very tiring
>>908132
Nothing wrong with a little bit of blind fate desu
>>908117
DESU, Aquinas' "rationality" is not quite what you'd think it is, at least in modern terms. He is definitely pre-modern and I think he can be closer to Orthodoxy than many believe.
The bigger problem is his defense of the fililoque.
>>908127
>he thinks one arrives at God through syllogisms and argumentation
stay pleb
>its true because we say so
>it's true coz AHHHH BELEAVVVVVVE
>other stuff isn't though, only my opinions get special exception
>>908666
No. It's true because YOU believe so. That's the point.
>>908160
The orthodox church isn't amazingly large outside of slavic countries but still receives a striking number of converts compared to the dwindling protestants and stagnating catholics. Particularly in America.
I'd say it's the better approach for actual conversion rather than just finding desperate people who need community.
I think it's kind of cute when religious people also want evidence for their religious beliefs, even if it's non-existent.
The problem is however, is that whenever you show that their supposed evidence is ridiculous, and doesn't prove anything, they always have faith to lean to, which is why they should just admit that they don't really care about evidence in the first place.
"Proof" for God=The idea cannot stand on it's own. A proper God would not only not need proof but it would provide proofs for other things
Faith in God= Extreme doubt and radical skepticism. Things that we really trust in are apparent, obvious, a real God would need no more faith than the dirt on the ground.
Christian concepts of God have butchered and defaced the spiritual side of life, paving the way for atheism.
>people trying to refute Aquinas in a japoamerican online board
>800 years after he was born and his philosophy has not been refutated
>>909076
>church of 1 person gains 1 new member
>HOLY SHIT A 100% INCREASE IN MEMBERSHIP
Most converts are Protestants who learned a bit about history, but couldn't get over their inherent anti-catholic leanings
In real life Orthodox Christians are elitist pricks
>>909604
You can argue that it hasn't been refuted. But OP's point is that no one gives a shit about it.
As the years go by Christians can cling to their copies of his books and say "Unrefuted!" as they watch their numbers shrink and the remaining Christians grow more and more laxed. Empty church's will be sold off and more more and more Christians will lose their faith and Aquina's "unrefuted" arguement still won't do shit.
It's as meaningful as Avicenna's unrefuted argument (which Aquinas totally didn't rip-off!).
>>908152
>EVANGELIZATION
e·van·gel·ize (ĭ-văn′jə-līz′)
v. e·van·gel·ized, e·van·gel·iz·ing, e·van·gel·iz·es
v.tr.
1. To preach the gospel to.
2. To convert to Christianity.
3. To promulgate or promote (a doctrine or idea, for example) enthusiastically.
v.intr.
1. To preach the gospel.
2. To promulgate or promote something enthusiastically.
>>909624
>As the years go by Christians can cling to their copies of his books and say "Unrefuted!" as they watch their numbers shrink
Nobody even knows who Aquinas is irl tbqh
>>909632
They say there's a difference, not me
I'm not Orthodox so stop reacting as if I'd said I believe in their argument
>>909633
/thread
>>909636
Words mean things.
Acts 1:8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”
>>909633
Aquinas is a man who considered all of his own work to be straw, stubble for the fire, and who refused to finish his greatest work, the summa theologica, because he realized that it was all the uninspired work of a very intelligent man, and not imbued with the Holy Spirit at all. Maybe he was being too harsh on his own works, maybe he was too close to death to think clearly, but I'm not going to come to a different conclusion about his works than he did.
>>909646
I'm not sure what you're trying to advocate for here
If you're arguing against the Orthodox view, then I already agree with you
If you're hoping to support it then I'd recommend you reread the book of acts
They definitely preached in Jerusalem
>>909658
I don't consider the people who demand 5 popes rule over them to be substantially different from those who demand only 1.
What makes you think I'm posting at you, before this post?
>>908228
If divinity was real, we would be able to observe things we could not explain scientifically, as the physical universe would obey specific instances of a divine will rather than universal natural laws. The example would have to be so far out of regular experience that it could not be explained by natural variations. A genuine miracle, the kind that was seemingly abundant in history but for whatever reason gradually became less and less common as information got more concrete.
Of course, the objection here would be "universal natural laws are the divine will" but that doesn't imply a personal, involved-in-daily-affairs god but rather a distant, uninvolved deistic watchmaker. Unnecessary, but not inherently objectionable from this viewpoint.
>>909633
Exactly. He's a club that Christians try to beat people over the head with on 4chan, but since the fedora's they are attacking are not convinced by his arguements all it does is make the Christians look whiny, they arn't winning internet converts. At best Aquinas is a circle-jerk.
>>909722
The biggest mistake Christians did and want ultimately doomed them is that they conceived of a God who was separate from nature. Once we learned that all is explained by nature we had no need for God. It took until Spinoza to fix this horrible mess that Christians made and finally return us to the divine understanding that the Pagans had: God and Nature are one in the same.
>>909722
Like, the creation of something from nothing, like the creation of life from non-life, like the creation of consciousness, like a moral law, things like that?
>>909781
So sad that you think God's creation is greater than God.
Everything you see is temporary, and you're running out of time.
>>909792
God is not seperate from the universe. This is illogical. The universe, is a word we use to describe everything that exists, there for if God exists he is part of our universe. Material and divine are not opposites, they are two sides of the same reality, one cannot exist without the other.
And of course everything is temporary. Because everything is in flux. The river is always changing shape. Even things that appear still are changing at some level. God too changes. The God of the old testament is not the same as the God that took human form. And when he died and returned he changed again.
What so many Christians fail to realize is that the New Testament is partly a coming of age story about God. Old Testament God is at odds with humans, he is always fighting with them, and not sure how to get close to them, he has trouble understanding them. So he did something miraclous. He forsook his divine throne and become like you and me, so that he could learn. His journey on earth changed him. We taught God, just as God once taught us.
>>909632
It does not mean doing shit like this,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wm5LQvI_UQI
>>909816
>those comments
>"catholics disgrace the teachings of Christ because they do not turn the other cheek"
>>909841
what the fuck, I didn't mean to post a picture with that post
>>909786
>something from nothing
Not a miracle, given current understanding of quantum behaviour and that our concepts of "something" and "nothing" are actually extremely flawed. While this doesn't apply on an everyday life macroscopic scale, it does apply on a quantum scale and likely would apply to the singularity.
>creation of life from non-life
Not a miracle given self-organization and self perpetuation and current understanding of abogenesis. Extremely unlikely on any given planet yes, but not improbable that it would emerge on one of them, given how many planets there are. That doesn't even get into how difficult it is to actually formally distinguish "life" from "non-life" aside from provisional "you know it when you see it".
>like the creation of consciousness,
Not a miracle given the iterative change of the brain over the entire span of life. It's special to us, but not that impressive from an external viewpoint.
>like a moral law
Not a miracle given the dynamic change between moral law over the course of human societies and their clear progression alongside particular time periods and thinkers.
So no, not like any of those things.
>>909812
Of course He is. When we say God created the universe, x ---> y, we presuppose the existence of God, x.
If God did not pre-exist the universe, how would saying "God made the universe" make any sense?
>>909816
True. Is this Christians or Catholics though? It's wrong either way, I'm just curious, and don't speak Korean.
>>909849
You are Daffy Duck?
>>909854
As I said, you believe something came from nothing.
You also believe that this finely tuned planet just happened to come along and somehow create us from non-living things.
And you believe that life on this spontaneously generated planet just happened to pick up some sort of consciousness, and a conscience, and a moral law.
At random.
The phrase "what we know from qm" is actually a very good indicator that the writer has absolutely no idea what qm is, does, or represents. Doubly so in your case.
>>909860
>how would saying "God made the universe" make any sense?
It doesn't. It's a contradiction in terms.
The universe is all that exists. If at any point God exists than the universe also exists. This is why God does not transcend Nature, because he is just another aspect of it: limited and governed by the same rules as everything else in the universe.
>>909866
Protestants
>>909894
God exists. God is not the universe. So, no, you're wrong. Again. God transcends nature because God created nature.
>>909899
Says the Catholic.
Here's Protestant Missionaries getting pwned by Buddhism with their deception exposed,
https://panadurawadaya.wordpress.com/summary/
>>909878
>As I said, you believe something came from nothing.
The concepts you are defining as "something" and "nothing" may be strictly cultural and not accurate descriptions of reality, yes.
>You also believe that this finely tuned planet just happened to come along
Yes, out of the multitude upon multitudes of planets unsuitable for life one would just happen to be suited for it. For all we know, perhaps earth is the only one in the universe.
>and somehow create us from non-living things.
The planet didn't create us. Life developed from simpler self-organizing and self-perpetuating structures.
>And you believe that life on this spontaneously generated planet just happened to pick up some sort of consciousness, and a conscience, and a moral law.
Yes, those are all derrived from the initial self-perpetuating nature of life.
>The phrase "what we know from qm" is actually a very good indicator that the writer has absolutely no idea what qm is, does, or represents.
Sure, it's a bad habit and I gladly take the correction. Allow me to rephrase then. At certain defined scales of examination, "something" can emerge from "nothing" spontaneously. We see this with Hawkins' radiation, for example. Given that the initial universe existed at similar scales, it is possible they would behave in similar ways. This either means our definitions of "something" and "nothing" are flawed, or that "something coming from nothing" is not unreasonable.
>>909923
>pwned
Cringeworthy. As is the article.
>>909925
You keep defending that you believe ridiculous and impossible things by saying that you believe ridiculous and impossible things. I get it. You believe ridiculous and impossible things.
>>909936
That debate actually happened and the Buddhist side clearly won and exposed the deceitful nature of Protestant missionaries.
This is also why the monk in that debate is one of Sri Lanka's national heroes.
>>909919
I've been a Copt for 70 generations bro.
>>909917
If God has a nature he could not have created nature.
And no I am not saying God is the universe. The universe by definition is all that exists. If God exists he is inside the universe.
The very idea "God exists" assumes all sorts of natural laws are in action. For instance that there is such a thing as "exist" that things that exist are capable of an action. The very idea of God creating somethign pre-sums there are rules about causality.
God could not have created the rules of causality because the creation of rules itself involves causality.
The idea that God trasnciends all, that he is unlimited, all powerful, that he created everything is Platonic in origin. This is not the God of the old testament.
does anybody have that pic of the marble sculpture of a male sweating because of the the rear parts of another sculpture, female this one?
>>909958
>The universe by definition is all that exists.
That is not the definition of the universe at all...
>>908543
It's not a dichotomy between blind faith and reason. There's also observation (ie. observation of the Creation).
>>909942
Okay, but believing ridiculous and impossible things we've observed seems like a surer bet that believing in ridiculous and impossible things we haven't.
>>909946
Buddhist aggression against minorities in Sri Lanka rose sharply last year. In January three Pentecostal churches were attacked by mobs. At least one of these mobs was led by monks. Furniture and windows were smashed and a prayer centre set on fire. In June anti-Muslim riots in the south-west of the country brought violence on a much larger scale. Four people were killed, 80 injured and 10,000 displaced. Neighbourhoods were torched and homes ransacked.
Gee, this happened too.
>>909954
Says the Catholic, who hasn't been anything for more than one generation.
>>909958
How can you confuse the word nature in such a cavalier fashion, and not be writing for the Onion?
>>910051
I'm not him, but allow me to post a snarky greentext
>We've totally observed something come from nothing
>>910051
We have never observed something coming from nothing.
We have never observed life coming from non-life.
We have never observed "nothing".
We have never observed the rise of consciousness.
We have never observed the rise of a conscience.
We have never observed a moral law writing itself.
These things we have never observed.
I'm not going to lie to you. If the church militant was open once more -- say in the event of a Vatican bombing -- I would heavily consider joining.
>>910090
The Church Militant is open you idiot. And it doesn't mean what you think it means.
>>909946
>He asked why Christians attach so much emphasis to the death of Jesus Christ, someone who advised his followers to acquire swords, and someone who had been charged with posing as the king of the Jews.
Jesus is the King of the Jews, and more, He's the King of Kings, and He is God. So Jesus was not "posing" at all. Jesus made sure at least 2 of His followers had swords, and said that His Kingdom is NOT spread by the sword. And finally, without the death of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, every man ever must pay for all of his sins in hellfire, forever.
Because there is no such thing as reincarnation. Never was, never will be. It is appointed for a man once to die, and then the judgment.
Is this the level of "win" you think Buddhists achieved in this "debate", where Buddhists basically just demonstrated their absolute ignorance of Christianity?
>As to the resurrection, the first witness, according to Mark 16:9, was Mary Magdalene, who had seven devils driven out of her. Could she be counted on to be completely sane and reliable?
She was one of the only people on earth that is certified DEMON FREE. Of course she's reliable. And of course, in that day and age, women were not called as witnesses, at all. Only men. The fact that a woman, and then women, are the first witnesses of the risen Christ Jesus is a powerful indication that the gospels ARE NOT MADE UP BY JEWS.
>>909946
>Turning to the Adam and Eve story, and how women were sentenced to give birth painfully as a result of eating that forbidden fruit, he asked why is it that some animals sometimes give birth painfully. Had their ancestors eaten some forbidden fruit also?
Is this a serious argument, from a serious person?
Or did he just miss where God cursed the entirety of creation?
>>908117
>This is precisely why the Patristic theology of the Eastern Church in the first millennium
But the fathers DID give proofs of God's existence...
>>910146
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
The bible starts out telling you what God did.
If you think God doesn't exist, then the bible isn't for you.
>>910086
/thread
>>909722
>The example would have to be so far out of regular experience that it could not be explained by natural variations.
There are plenty of miracles that cannot or require exceedingly tenuous rational arguments to justify. The rationalist, however, refuses to accept divinity as the answer and looks for answers that are there, and when it cannot the simply reverts the the age old adage of "mass delusion."
>>909860
>we presuppose the existence of God, x
Incorrect. Read up on Aquinus. God does not exist period. God is beyond existence. He is that which allows existence to have meaning and to be contingent.
>>910000
You can use the word reality, existence or "all" if you want. The point is there is some state which encompasses everything, including God if he exists.
This idea instantly means that God is in the same playing field as everyone else, subject to the laws of reality.
It instantly means that he is limited since he is just a part of what exists.
The Christian desire for a Mary Sue God is just their wish for security and certainty.
>>910300
>God does not exist.
Glad it's settled
>>910300
>God does not exist period. God is beyond existenc
>God does not exist
>God is X
makes no sense
>>910300
I'll post it again, slower.
When we say God made the universe, that is to say that x ---> y, we presuppose the existence of x.
This is in contrast to one of the other possibilities, that the universe created itself (an eternal universe is illogical, and discarded, as it would be in heat death right now):
To say the universe created itself, x ---> x, you presuppose that x pre-exists x in order to create x.
It's logical nonsense. The universe cannot pre-exist in order to create itself.
>>910345
Let the word "Nature" describe all that is.
In this case it is logical to assume to that reality could have created the initial gas and elements that formed solar system.
This leaves us with one of 2 possibilities
1. Nature, which is all, is also God
2. God did not create all, as he is in the sub-set Nature
>>910345
But God cannot create himself either
>>910385
You know what the most pathetic thing is.
The origenal Hebrew Genesis doesn't support a created world. It doesn't even support a "sustained" world in the way Aquinas wants it. "In the beggining" is a shitty translation. Further more primoderial water exists along side God having no origin.
In Genesis the universe is already created, it's just in a primoderial form. And several Gods, not just Yahweh create some material things. Yawheh isn't even the only God. But rather he made a pact with the Jews that they would have an exclusive relationship. It's not that other Gods don't exist but that the Jews are not supposed to worship them.
>>910072
Did they deliberately misinform others of their doctrine and twist their Scripture?
>>910109
The Christian side had misrepresented the Buddhists too so this isn't even a fair point. They also failed to address the issue of delibrate mistranslation of Scripture that the Buddhist side had raised.
>>910115
The question then is why is Creation itself which isn't guilty of anything cursed by the actions of sentient beings?
We don't imprison a weapon simply because it is used in a murder.
>>910345
I never get why this proof is used for God. Assuming all the statements up until the conclusion the most you could draw is that something created the universe, not a conscious, omnipresent, omnipotent being and especially not the specific god of the bible
>>910464
>Assuming all the statements up until the conclusion the most you could draw is that something created the universe, not a conscious, omnipresent, omnipotent being and especially not the specific god of the bible
I'm not him (nor am I Christian), but your mistake is in thinking that this is the only proof used to establish God and His attributes.
>>908757
I don't think you know what "true" means.
>>909655
>I'm not going to come to a different conclusion about his works than he did.
BINGO (nice dubs)
>>909812
God transcends the Universe. God transcends everything including Himself.
>>910379
How does changing "Creation" to "Nature" do anything constructive? No, your possibilities are still shit. God is not all; God made the universe, existed prior to the universe, and will exist after the universe is gone.
And "Nature" did not create God.
>>910385
Nobody said He did.
>>910412
Bullshit.
Genesis 1Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
1 In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --
2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,
3 and God saith, `Let light be;' and light is.
You Jews never cease to fail.
>>910435
I just quoted a story that did not portray Buddhists as some poor innocent meditating children. They're apparently quite vicious, and quite violent.
The creation was cursed so that you would know something is wrong. Really wrong. And seek an explanation.
>>910464
It isn't. It's the intuitive way to dismiss "the universe created itself". That leaves only "the universe is eternal", which is scientifically impossible, and "the universe is caused by another".
>>908117
>Ignorance is better than reason.
You sure showed them.
>>910918
He's not advocating ignorance, you pleb. He's advocating actual knowledge through direct experience, as opposed to semantic and abstract arguments. He's offering something more tangible.
>>910908
>not reading the original hebrew
desu baka-chan
>>910940
>your own simulacrum is something tangible
>>910946
>not knowing about the wordfilters
Newfag detected
>>910952
you have a problem with my word choice being moe moe baka-kun?
>>910946
Cancer.
>>910940
Oh pardon me then.
>Delusion is better than reason.
There. Fixed.
>>910949
>>910971
So a massive body of Church Fathers and laymen and clergy who all attest to the SAME experience are just delusional? It's no different then what you see in front of you with your eyes. It's simply an experience that is less readily accessible. There is a way to access that, and you can find it in the writings of the Church and in the Gospels.
Lots of religious disciplines across many different religions are geared toward inducing experiences which are not readily accessible. This particular experience, acc. to the Orthos, is an experience of God or Truth insofar as a human being is capable. It's easy to dismiss something you have no actual experience of. The only legit way to dispute the nature of the content of this experience is to experience it yourself. Otherwise you're just baselessly speculating.
>>910911
They don't mistranslate their scriptures and teachings at least unlike the Protestants.
That's my point. Every testimony of that debate shows that the Protestant side cannot even answer the charge of mistranslation.
Of course the whole Protestant paradigm of sin fails when God could just as easily forgive them rather than to beat his own son up.
>>911047
>The only legit way to dispute the nature of the content of this experience is to experience it yourself.
it doesn't take a scizophrenic to see if a scizophrenic is delusional. I'm not saying that people who have religious experiences are scizophrenic, just trying to point out the flaw in your argument. when tons of people have religious experiences from every branch of christianity down to the most obviously fraudulent cult it says something about the true nature of these experiences. If only one god was able to induce visions then it'd be a different story
>>911047
>So a massive body of Church Fathers and laymen and clergy who all attest to the SAME experience are just delusional?
Either that or a conspiracy.The alternative is you believe in miracles and magic and mysteries and stupid impossible shit.
Literally in this very fucking thread you guys are celebrating how much faith you have for believing in implausible things, how about some consistency. Just go crazy, that would be the most faithful. Why justify it at all.
I don't get this appeal to tradition, tradition can just be wrong, why cling so hard to ancient poems.
>>910345
My issue with you using the word exist is that it leads to errors like this >>910379 wherein upon hearing the word exist people presuppose God as some sort of Being that is within, without, or of the World. God is beyond "all that is" God is not even "is," God is that which allows the concept of "is" to be.
>>911193
>Literally in this very fucking thread you guys are celebrating how much faith you have for believing in implausible things
Not agreeing with OP, but how are miracles implausible when God exists?
>>911219
They statistically don't happen very often even if you allow for God existing.
>>911193
It's not an appeal just to tradition, but to a working disicipline
Talking about a discipline based experience that has been confirmed time and time again is not referring to implausoble things. It's plausible and has been confirmed and described (insofar as language can apporoximate it). Familiarize yourself with the literature on this topic. That way if you still want to reject it you will atleast jave some basis for doing so.
>>911178
You can tell a person is delusional by their behavior. An Orthodox Christian aims at a higher than usual sobriety and clarity in their thoughts and actions.
>>911240
I'm not sure how you can statistically account for miracles when people will consider almost anything a miracle even if they are cured from a disease through natural means
>>911240
It depends on what model of causation youre working with. Occasionalism makes everything a miracle for example.
>>911250
Idk, St.Andrew being bishop of Byzantium is pretty implausible, Orthofam.
>>911250
>An Orthodox Christian aims at a higher than usual sobriety and clarity in their thoughts and actions.
can you prove that this is something exclusive to orthodox christianity? don't muslims and mormons show a high level of a sobriety given that they aren't allowed to drink alcohol? people in peak mental health across faiths are capable of religious experiences. this doesn't prove that it isn't delusional and instead the result of a higher power
>>911283
>Examples of the intentionally vague nature of the discussion which fosters and enables mysticism.
Sounds more like examples of the shit you cant appropiately respond to. Do you even know what Occasionalism is?
>>911279
It's not something exclusive to Orthos. Lots of religious disciplines aim at that, most notably Buddhism. By sobriety I mean mental clarity in though and behavior, but abstinence from alcohol can be a factor as well. The more clearheaded and aware you are the better you can avoid delusion, famalam. Not sure what you mean there.
>>911283
Indoctrination is a really loaded term. You reject that Truthfulness of what is being taught and so ipso facto it appears as indoctrination to you as opposed to education.
>>911269
Can you explain what you're referring to? I'm not Orthodox, actually, or even Christian, but very interested in the topic. Increasingly interested in conversion as well, actually.
>>911342
>Can you explain what you're referring to?
That there isnt any solid evidence that St Andrew was bishop of Byzantium. Most tradition that places him there appeared while Constantinople was in conflict with the other 3 Patriarchs
>>911342
are you of the belief that all religions have some element of an ultimate theological truth or something?
ITT: Eastern Church hasn't been able to produce a philosopher of the caliber of Aquinas.
Let's try to invert the situation and pretend that's actually a good thing.
>>911819
If we're choosing a way of life by the caliber of philosophers it produces then I guess we should just go secular or deist, or perhaps Protestant.
Fact of the matter is that the kind of Philosophy Aquinas engages in is interesting from a intellectual standpoint, but superfluous to the Christian life. The Eastern Church has produced many remarkable Church Fathers and Saints. Philosophy is a worldly occupation. But don't take my word for it. Let's see what Saint Thomas Aquinas has to say on the matter:
>"All that I have written seems like straw compared to what has now been revealed to me."
>>909076
>stagnating
The Church is doing gangbusters in Asia and Africa. The fastest growing church in the world is Pentecostalism, but Catholics aren't far behind.
>>911917
>but superfluous to the Christian life.
and the Patriarch bowing to the Emperor is essential to it?
>claiming there's never been an observation of the Divine operation in the world
>what are miracles and wonders
Where were you when the Eastern Church became a parasite to the Secular power?
>“Among us, the patriarch is not greatly concerned about his flock. His every concern is rather how he can please the emperor. He is well aware that he holds his office only through the courtesy of the emperor, so that if the latter becomes displeased, he falls immediately from ecclesiastical office. Therefore he sees himself compelled to act like the Emperor’s slave if he is to enjoy his ecclesiastical rule for any length of time. Thus, if he makes any move to censure some cleric, or even to call some tavern owner to task, or to try to make some other feeble gesture of authority which in fact displeases the Emperor, then the injured parties run to the palace. There the Patriarch is sharply taken to task whether he vainly appeals in his defence to the gospels, the Apostles, Church law, or the Imperial edicts. Then if he does not get down on his knees to beg forgiveness, he is liable not only to lose his Episcopal see and office, but he might even be accused of treason or murder and thus be arrested as a common villain. That is the kind of servility we see inflicted on the Bride of Christ whose freedom and independence ought to be inviolable.”
>>911932
>>911941
I'm not sure what your point is. The Church is made up of many Bishops. It doesn't rely on one ruler like the Catholics. There are so many examples of misconduct by Popes. It's a community. I don't know whether those accusations are true or not, but it doesn't seem to be particularly relevant. It seems like deflection. What is your point actually? Does it have anything to do with what I said here:
>>911917
>>911950
>It doesn't rely on one ruler like the Catholics
Who said this is the case?
>>911929
Number of converts proves nothing desu senpai. The New Testament says true Christians will be few in the last days.
>>911966
I don't know, man. What is the pojnt your making? Do you mind clarifyong for me?
>>911975
clarifying*
>>911975
What's the point of this thread? It's just an attempt of the despised Orthoposting in /his/
>>912253
OP is just sharing some interestong Orthodox Christian ideas. I don't see what's wrong with that.
http://pemptousia.com/video/the-east-of-the-west-and-the-west-of-the-east/
Just thought I would share this nice clip on scholastic theology and the East-West split.
