-->
@Stephen
hahahahahahaha.
Christology
Posts
Total:
112
-->
@Stronn
It probably wouldn't be incorrect to identify "the universe" with "creation", but we certainly believe that The Ultimate Reality precedes all existence, even time, and that it is The Ultimate Reality gives the universe its existence. We would say that God created the universe.
Some people like to confuse things by talking about multiple universes or other such absurdities. I would like to make it clear that if there is a multiverse or "multiple universes", there can be no doubt that The Ultimate Reality is above all of these things, and would be what unifies them.
But lets say there is 1 universe. Let us also say that everything that exists with the exception of God is contained in the universe. I say with the exception of God because though God is in the universe(the incarnation), God is not the universe itself. Yes, the universe is deified because of God's presence in it, but the universenis not God, it is united in God.
We Orthodox are not pantheists, we are panentheists. This distinction is important, because The Ultimate Reality cannot be contingent on time or space. God does not change. God is outside of time, but time is contained by God. God is not contained. We explain this mystery through Mary, mother of God(or Theotokos). How in her womb, the uncontainable and uncircumscribable God was contained in her womb but still uncontained and circumscribed! Unfortunately, protestant Christianity has lost its appreciation of the theotokos, but I digress. Maybe it will come up later.
We Orthodox are not pantheists, we are panentheists. I think that is worth repeating.
If God is reality, and God is uncreated, it would seem to follow that reality is uncreated. Is that what you intend?
I will address this more thoroughly in your next question, but it is important to make the distinction. God is not simply "reality", God is "The Ultimate Reality".
The Ultimate Reality is Uncreated. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are uncreated. Creation is however, the flesh of The Son. The Word of God(which is divine, uncreated) made flesh(the flesh is creation).
So to keep it Christological, in the hypostasis of The Son, there are 2 natures united without confusion, without seperation, and without change. We call this the "hypostatic union" in that the divine and the created are met.
What is the difference between truth and The Truth.
It is the same difference that is between "reality" and "The Ultimate Reality". It is true that Donald Trump is the president of The United States. This statement is true now, but in a decade this will no longer be true. A decade ago, this was not true either. This "truth" is a contingent reality that can only be true in relation to other truths or realities. It is not eternally true, only truenin a temporal and relativistic sense.
The Truth refers to the persistent reality, The Absolute Truth that never changes. It is The Ultimate Reality. It Is always The Truth, there never was a time when it wasn't The Truth, and it will always be The Truth. Also, it is the existence of The Truth that gives all more relative truths their veracity.
Define "divinity" or "The Son",
Divinity means coming from God or related to God. The Word of God is divine, and all of creation comes from The Word of God. We say that God speaks things into existence. The Word is the divine aspect of The Son, the creation is the fleshly aspect of The Son. This is enlivened by The Holy Spirit is like the breath that carries The Word.
And so we are created in God's image. Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
I hope that helps. Does that make sense to you? Any other way I can clarify?
-->
@PGA2.0
A lot of people have no problem accepting Jesus as savior.... the Lord part tends to trip people up!
Thank you for your input.
-->
@Mopac
A lot of people have no problem accepting Jesus as savior.... the Lord part tends to trip people up!Thank you for your input.
Thank you!
-->
@Mopac
... we certainly believe that The Ultimate Reality precedes all existence, even time, and that it is The Ultimate Reality gives the universe its existence.
This is what doesn't make sense, so anything that comes after it is moot.
First, "precede" means "come before in time." It is therefore incoherent to say that something precedes time.
Second, it contains a glaring contradiction. If the Ultimate Reality precedes all existence, that implies that the Ultimate Reality is not itself contained in existence. (Otherwise the Ultimate Reality would precede itself, an absurdity.) But if something is not part of existence, then by definition it does not exist. That means that the Ultimate Reality does not exist, which means God does not exist.
Maybe you can reconcile these fatal flaws, but I doubt it.
-->
@Stronn
The word we use is actually pre-eternal.
Hope that clears it up.
-->
@Mopac
Giving it a name doesn't clear anything up. It is still incoherent.
-->
@Mopac
What do you need saving from?
-->
@Stronn
What you should be saying is that it is incoherent to you. If you really want to see how it is coherent, speak to me with the intention of finding that coherence. If your intent is simply to dismiss the whole thing out of principle, we are not going to have as good of a discussion.
Pre-eternal is not simply a name. It describes a very particular thing. It shows an eternity that exists independent of time as it gave birth to time itself. Time is change. For the present to exist, the past must die. For the future to exist, the present must die. And so in another way, the mystery of Christ's death and resurrection is shown in time, as Christ is the persistent reality that fills all of creation. Christ is in the past, eve before the foundations of the world, and Christ is with us even to the end of the world. The Alpha and Omega, the first and the last.
The Ultimate Reality exists outside of time.
Time cannot be a reality over The Ultimate Reality.
Time is an aspect of creation.
God exists simultaneously outside of time and creation and inside time and creation through the incarnation. Through His Son and Holy Spirit. Through His Word and His Breath.
Or as we would also say, praise be to the theotokos who contained what cannot be contained in her womb. It is another way of expressing that same mystery of how God, greater than the universe, can still be with us. The theotokos typifies creation itself, who though created by God bears God in her womb.
-->
@Mopac
What do you need saving from?
-->
@Mopac
The Ultimate Reality exists outside of time.
The ultimate reality therefore doesn't exist in reality.
Does time exist in reality?
Your circular dance just becomes more UNREAL with every new addition.
-->
@Mopac
It is incoherent for the two reasons I gave, neither of which you have reconciled.
-->
@Stronn
Creation =/= existence
The Ultimate Reality is by definition existence
I already addressed your time question.
.
-->
@Stronn
I get the impression you have made up your mind before hand, because statements like "Maybe you can reconcile these fatal flaws, but I doubt it." seem to hint that you are not really here to learn.
This is not the attitude of an honest Inquirer.
-->
@Stronn
I would tend not to describe the state of being as "existent", for the sake of avoiding misunderstanding myself. That is not to say God does not exist.
-->
@Mopac
But earlier you said that the Ultimate Reality precedes existence. Something preceding itself is what I find incoherent.The Ultimate Reality is by definition existence
-->
@Mopac
I attempt to practice critical thinking when evaluating arguments. Part of that is playing devil's advocate and attempting to pick apart and refute said arguments. It's not dishonesty, it's healthy skepticism. Solid arguments should welcome such scrutiny.
That said, I'm not going to pretend that you have much chance of converting me.
-->
@Snoopy
Look up "being" in the dictionary and the first definition is "existence". So if you use to to mean something different, you should be careful to define the words in a way that makes the difference between them clear.
-->
@Stronn
But earlier you said that the Ultimate Reality precedes existence. Something preceding itself is what I find incoherent.
I don't believe I would use such language, but whether I did or not, let me clarify.
The Ultimate Reality is literally existence in the truest sense of the word. It is the most real.
What I am saying is that all OTHER existences have their existence from it, and there is no OTHER existence that came before it. Time itself is an existence that comes after The Ultimate Reality. That being the case, time can exist within God though God does not change. God exists in time through the incarnation, but the incarnation does not mean God ceases to exist outside of creation.
I think it is important to note that the incarnation itself is what gives reality to created things.
I attempt to practice critical thinking when evaluating arguments. Part of that is playing devil's advocate and attempting to pick apart and refute said arguments. It's not dishonesty, it's healthy skepticism. Solid arguments should welcome such scrutiny.
I've got no problem with you scrutinizing or asking question, I just hope that you believe me when I correct you. You have to some extent trust that I know what I am trying to communicate and so give me the benefitnof the doubt if I say that you aren't understanding properly. If you can give me that charity, I will do the best I can to help you understand properly.
You have to believe that my intention is to educate, not puff myself up or put you down. I'm sure it'll be fine, you are being reasonable.
-->
@Mopac
Existence preceded existence. OYGThe Ultimate Reality is literally existence in the truest sense of the word. It is the most real.
-->
@Mopac
Although I'm sure that you are being sincere.
The trouble is, most of what you espouse is unverifiable non-sense.
You've acquired and stored certain data in a way that seems to preclude rationality.
In terms of ultimate reality; I would suggest that uncertainty is that all we can be certain of.
Theism is a valid theory, but is nonetheless only theory.
And simply espousing non-sense cannot validate theory.
N.B. I have hyphenated non-sense in the hope that you regard it literally, rather than as a derogatory term.
-->
@zedvictor4
No, it is very easily verified when it all clicks. See, when I make the claim that our theology is fundamentally apodictic truth, that means that when understood itnis easy to have faith in because it is so obviously true that there is no room for doubt.
So if it is non-sense to you, that means that you are presuming to understand it when you don't.
But it seems to me you are caught at the very first step. You are in doubt about whether there is an ultimate reality at all. If you can't see that it is impossible for there not to be an ultimate reality, and that denying the ultimate reality is self defeating, I probably won't have much hope of demonstrating to how "Only a fool says in their heart there is no God".
Theism is not a theory. What is theism about?
THE IS
Because God IS THE IS.
Theism is all about WHAT IS.
Because God is WHAT TRULY IS.
If you are denying God, you are embracing the most extreme form of nihilism which is a denial of any absolute truth, and by inference all truth. It destroys itself.
This is not really a topic on the existence of God though, it is a topic about Christology. I don't want to veer too far off that.
-->
@Mopac
That man made claim is less than 3000yrs old in world that is 4.5 billion years old it has no evidence to support such a childish claim.Because God is WHAT TRULY IS
In post #62 in this thread you said:
...we certainly believe that The Ultimate Reality precedes all existence, even time, and that it is The Ultimate Reality gives the universe its existence.
So yes, you said it, whether you intended to or not. I even quoted it and took issue with it in post #65. But ok, we will assume that you misspoke.
The Ultimate Reality is literally existence in the truest sense of the word. It is the most real.
In logic, propositions are either true or false. There is no concept of one proposition being truer than another. So it is hard to know what is meant when say that the Ultimate Reality is reality in its truest sense. It's like someone being the most dead, or someone being the most absent from a room right now.
What I am saying is that all OTHER existences have their existence from it, and there is no OTHER existence that came before it. Time itself is an existence that comes after The Ultimate Reality. That being the case, time can exist within God though God does not change. God exists in time through the incarnation, but the incarnation does not mean God ceases to exist outside of creation.
It sounds like you are describing a meta-reality, a reality above observable reality. If so, I can go with that as a plausible conjecture. I don't see how the nature of such a meta-reality could ever be more than conjecture, however. How could we possibly discover anything about it? After all, by definition it is not observable.
I think it is important to note that the incarnation itself is what gives reality to created things.
If we can't observe this meta-reality, how can we know this? On what basis can we ascribe divisions to it, as in the Trinity? How can we possibly know that it has any theistic attributes?
-->
@Stronn
The Ultimate Reality is singularity. It is true in itself. All other truths or realities are contingent on other realities. This is one of the defining differences between creation and The Uncreated. Created things are contingent existences. The Uncreated is not contingent. The Ultimate Reality exists in itself. Yet, nothing else exists without it.In logic, propositions are either true or false. There is no concept of one proposition being truer than another. So it is hard to know what is meant when say that the Ultimate Reality is reality in its truest sense. It's like someone being the most dead, or someone being the most absent from a room right now.
It sounds like you are describing a meta-reality, a reality above observable reality. If so, I can go with that as a plausible conjecture. I don't see how the nature of such a meta-reality could ever be more than conjecture, however. How could we possibly discover anything about it? After all, by definition it is not observable.
The essence of God is unknowable. Our theology has more to with HOW God is rather than WHAT God is.
If we can't observe this meta-reality, how can we know this? On what basis can we ascribe divisions to it, as in the Trinity? How can we possibly know that it has any theistic attributes?
Father, Son, Holy Spirit. One in essence, undivided.
It is a mystery, but these are not divisions in God. God is absolutely One. Remember how I said our theology deals with HOW God is rather than WHAT God is?
The Father is where The Son and Holy Spirit originate. The Son and The Holy Spirit are how God is manifested in creation.
The Son is The Truth. The most perfect image of God. You could say the name "the ultimate reality" and what that means is that image.
The Holy Spirit. The Spirit of Truth. This proceeds from The Father, through The Son, and itnis by The Holy Spirit that we recognize The Father through The Son.
And so by acknowledging The Son, it is demonstrated that The God we worship is not a conception while simultaneously acknowledging that as created beings we relate to God through creation.
And so God is incarnate in Creation. God is with us.
-->
@Mopac
The Ultimate Reality is singularity. It is true in itself. All other truths or realities are contingent on other realities. This is one of the defining differences between creation and The Uncreated. Created things are contingent existences. The Uncreated is not contingent. The Ultimate Reality exists in itself. Yet, nothing else exists without it.
I don't know what you mean by "singularity." As far as "contingent", yes, I got from your previous posts that reality is contingent on this meta-reality you call the Ultimate Reality, in that it cannot exist independently. My question of how you know this remains, however. How can we know anything about an unobservable Ultimate Reality? How do we know this Ultimate Reality is not itself contingent on an even more ultimate reality? Simply saying "it's defined that way" isn't a satisfactory answer.
The essence of God is unknowable. Our theology has more to with HOW God is rather than WHAT God is.
That is very close to what physicists say about physics, that we cannot say what anything is, only how it behaves.
But again, how can you discover anything about how God is, when God is unobservable? By what method do you reach the conclusion that the Ultimate Reality is a Trinity as you describe?
I don't know what you mean by "singularity." As far as "contingent", yes, I got from your previous posts that reality is contingent on this meta-reality you call the Ultimate Reality, in that it cannot exist independently. My question of how you know this remains, however. How can we know anything about an unobservable Ultimate Reality? How do we know this Ultimate Reality is not itself contingent on an even more ultimate reality? Simply saying "it's defined that way" isn't a satisfactory answer.
The Ultimate Reality by definition cannot have a reality over it. If there is a reality over it, that reality would be The Ultimate Reality.
Sorry you don't find that a satisfactory answer.
That is very close to what physicists say about physics, that we cannot say what anything is, only how it behaves.But again, how can you discover anything about how God is, when God is unobservable? By what method do you reach the conclusion that the Ultimate Reality is a Trinity as you describe?
The context of all of this stuff is that our religion is Truth worship.
All of creation testifies of God, we know God exists.
Our discipline can be summed up as follows...
"Blessed are the pure in heart, they will see God."
And so that is our approach. The purifying of the heart, or to use a more technical term, the nous. Our discipline is about purifying the nous.
It is not sufficient to have gnosis, but epignosis. That is, not simply knowledge but experiential and true knowledge. In fact, to us, a theologian is not someone who is well studied in books, but someone who has experienced these mysteries and truly knows. The difference between a scientist with experiential knowledge and someone who reads a textbook.
-->
@Mopac
Mop's god now has a new name to add to all the other names he gives it.
Fathersonholyghost.
-->
@Mopac
"No, it is very easily verified when it all clicks".
This could be said about any concept based theory.
Theism clicks in your head and atheism clicks in my head.
"Theism is not a theory".
Theism is but one human thought based attempt at explaining the creation and meaning of everything.
As such, theism is a perfect example of theoretical thinking.
And Christology is just another example of head clicking relative to acquired and stored information.
Of course; acquired and stored information and more importantly how we manipulate that information varies considerably from head to head.
Your head clicking has led you to one individual conclusion and my head clicking has led me to another.
Currently we have approximately 7.7 billion individual conclusions available.
So as things stand your conclusion has a 1 in 7.7billion chance of being the right one.
-->
@Mopac
The Ultimate Reality by definition cannot have a reality over it.
You define your ultimate reality as a fictional character invented in a book of fiction, reality will always be above that.