Where did God come from?

Author: Dr.Franklin

Posts

Total: 134
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stronn
If the things we do have effects to them, how can you say that God doesn't care what we do? Even you know that touching the hot stove gets you burned. 

If there could be no existence without God, how can you say God doesn't intervene in our affairs?

Who says that God wants our worship as if God needed such a thing?



The problem here is that you don't really understand what we believe. However, what you hear must somehow fit into what you thi k you know already!

The God we believe is certainly The Ultimate Reality, and that means exactly what it does.




Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stronn
God with a capital  "G" means "The Ultimate Really".

This does not imply any religious belief.

Christianity is a relationship with God. We relate to God as a person. We do not claim that created things or God, nor do we claim that God is a created thing. We do say that we are created beings in creation, and that our relationship with God is necessarily through the medium of creation. We say that God is in creation. We believe that Truth is incarnate. So we relate to God through Truth being with us in creation.

Not understanding our language does not negate the veracity of what is being expressed with it. As I said though, belief that God exists does not imply belief in Christianity. Hindus and Muslims do not believe as we do, but they still believe that God exists.


It is not rational to deny God's existence, because God is The Ultimate Reality. To deny God's existence is to embrace nihilism.











Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Mopac
I understand your language just fine. God with a capital G may mean Ultimate Reality,, but God to Christianity means much more than that..It is the "much more" part that I reject. I don't see any justification for treating reality as a person which whom to have a relationship.



Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stronn
Yet your relationship to reality is through a person, and that cannot be avoided. You are, after all, a person.









Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stronn

Maybe you don't really understand the "much more" part as well as you think. 

I have made it very simple and demystifying for you and everyone.

Christianity is Truth worship through the purification of the intellect.

And as The Orthodox Church is the original church, and only true Christian Church, it stands to reason that our understanding of the faith is correct, while those who have deviated from the church do not know what they profess to believe. So you can be confused by  the superstitions of the heretics or you can hear it from the source. Our church is the church all "Christianity" originated from through deviation.



Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Mopac
I understand that you omit a huge portion about what you believe about God when you say that Christianity is just about truth worship.

Are you really making the argument that the older the church, the more correct its doctrine? If so, then that would make Hinduism more correct than Christianity, since the oldest Hindu Vedas were written more than 1,000 years before Jesus. 
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stronn
I am certainly not making that argument.

But there is no religious institution or any institution for that matter as old as The Apostolic Church.


I am not omitting as much as you would like to think either, because all of that stuff you think I am omitting is how we describe what I am saying.


The church, just as Jesus did, teaches in parables. Jesus' very incarnation and life was a parable. That is why we say The Truth is a person. 

Our faith very simply is Truth worship.



Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Mopac
But there is no religious institution or any institution for that matter as old as The Apostolic Church.
Even if true, as you admit, it has nothing to do with the correctness of doctrine.

And it is quite obviously not true, for the simple reason that there are religions that precede Jesus and the Apostles.

The church, just as Jesus did, teaches in parables. Jesus' very incarnation and life was a parable. That is why we say The Truth is a person. 
So you believe that Jesus was not an actual person, but is just a story?
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stronn
Having texts that are older does not constitute an intact and continuous priesthood. We have a continuity of governance you could say.

No, I am not saying that Jesus was not an actual person,  I am saying that he taught in parqbles and even His life here on Earth is a parqble.

That is, demonstrating something through comparison. There is allegorical meaning to it all. Or as we say, the difference between catechisis and mystagogy 


janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
How do you know any of that?
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@janesix
Cause I do
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Can you be more specific please
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@janesix
Becuase my priest talked about it
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Ok thanks