What is the Orthodox Christian view on Heaven and Hell??

[Moxie]

Someone mentioned on another thread that Orthodox have a different view of Heaven and Hell. I'd love to know what it is!!

[DawnM]

Would this be it?

 

http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/spirituality/the-kingdom-of-heaven/heaven-and-hell

[chocolatechip]

Dawn posted a good link.

 

Basically:

 

God is pure love. The Orthodox believe that everyone will be in the presence of this pure love after death. If one has inclined his heart through drawing close to God, then he will be eager to draw even closer to God and will experience that love as incomprehensible joy. If one has lived a life far from God and rejected Him, he will want to run from God's presence and will experience God's pure love as a burning fire. It is neverending because God's pure nature will never change: He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. 

 

This really neatly does away with the question "How can a loving God send people to hell?" With this theology, we "send" ourselves to hell by our own actions and choices, and the same for Heaven. We don't really necessarily look at Heaven and Hell as physical places. 

 

Does that help?

 

ETA: Other Orthodox, please don't hesitate to clarify/correct if you feel like I've misrepresented/explained badly. Sometimes it's hard to say (type?) what I'm thinking!

 

 

[umsami]

 

 

God is pure love. The Orthodox believe that everyone will be in the presence of this pure love after death. If one has inclined his heart through drawing close to God, then he will be eager to draw even closer to God and will experience that love as incomprehensible joy. If one has lived a life far from God and rejected Him, he will want to run from God's presence and will experience God's pure love as a burning fire. It is neverending because God's pure nature will never change: He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. 

 

 

That is beautiful.  

 

<3

[SunnyDays]

I really like that explanation, I hadn't heard it before.  I don't know what the Orthodox position is on scripture vs. tradition (my Protestant background is generally sola scriptura), so not sure if this is a factor at all.... but is there scriptural support for this concept of heaven and hell, or is it in Church writings, or ???

 

 

[milovany]

You answered well, I think, Chocolate Chip. It's a huge paradigm shift, one I'm still working through (gladly so -- my former point of view was very judgmental and too caught up in the salvation of others; now I have waaaay too much on my own plate that needs addressing to even think about what others ought to be doing).  What's been interesting to me is that coming from this perspective has given me more hope for others rather than less though.  For example, my elderly grandmother died almost four years ago.  As a protestant, I'd waited and hoped and prayed for years that she would "accept Christ" before she died.  From that point of view, she never did, and so would not be in heaven now.  I was in the process of converting to Orthodoxy the last time I saw her (or just had) and I talked with her and loved her and prayer with and for her.  It was peaceful and she was warm in return.  We talked about God, she said she'd grown to believe in Him more over the years.  I think she even said she loved Him.  But did I lead her in a "sinner's prayer" so she would be "saved"?  No, there was no need.  Her journey was her journey, salvation is of God (and I'm not privvy to that information), and God is loving and merciful.  That's all I know, and need to know. 

 

I see more replies popping up as I type.  Hopefully this isn't disjointed now from the conversation, but just thought I'd share it. 

[milovany]

I really like that explanation, I hadn't heard it before.  I don't know what the Orthodox position is on scripture vs. tradition (my Protestant background is generally sola scriptura), so not sure if this is a factor at all.... but is there scriptural support for this concept of heaven and hell, or is it in Church writings, or ???

 

There's a lot of Scripture in the above-linked article, Sunny.  So that's a start.  But you're inkling is also right -- we don't ascribe to sola scriptura theology.  We believe in Holy Tradition, of which the Holy Scriptures are a part (but not the whole of our faith, nor its foundation; the church -- as according to the Scriptures themselves -- is the foundation of our faith).  The writings of the ages also speak of these things, and they to are a part of our Holy Tradition. 

[PrincessMommy]

I think what has been explained is quite good.  My only addition is that I would clarify (because it is often misinterpreted this way) that EO are not Universalists.  That doctrine/theology was rejected more than 1000 years ago.   Jesus clearly teaches that there are sheep and there are goats.  It's just not our business to decide who is who.   As far as I know there are only 2 people whom the Church has condemned to perdition - Judas and Arias.    Everyone else we leave in God's hands and pray for His great mercy and love to shine on them.

 

 

I really like that explanation, I hadn't heard it before.  I don't know what the Orthodox position is on scripture vs. tradition (my Protestant background is generally sola scriptura), so not sure if this is a factor at all.... but is there scriptural support for this concept of heaven and hell, or is it in Church writings, or ???

 

In a nutshell... we don't believe in "sola" anything.  Not Sola Works, not Sola Faith, not Sola Scriptura, not Sola Tradition.   It's always "both/and" not "either/or" for us.   We want the "fullness" do not whittle our faith down to the most simplest factor:

 

FWIW, Sola Scriptura is a fairly new philosophy and when parsed out and unpacked really doesn't hold up to scrutiny.   How many different Protestant traditions claim "Sola Scriptura" but have very different beliefs?  Ok, sorry - when totally off topic.

 

 

[albeto.]

Dawn posted a good link.

 

Basically:

 

God is pure love. The Orthodox believe that everyone will be in the presence of this pure love after death. If one has inclined his heart through drawing close to God, then he will be eager to draw even closer to God and will experience that love as incomprehensible joy. If one has lived a life far from God and rejected Him, he will want to run from God's presence and will experience God's pure love as a burning fire. It is neverending because God's pure nature will never change: He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. 

 

This really neatly does away with the question "How can a loving God send people to hell?" With this theology, we "send" ourselves to hell by our own actions and choices, and the same for Heaven. We don't really necessarily look at Heaven and Hell as physical places. 

 

Does that help?

 

ETA: Other Orthodox, please don't hesitate to clarify/correct if you feel like I've misrepresented/explained badly. Sometimes it's hard to say (type?) what I'm thinking!

 

I'm trying to imagine myself in this scenario. I not only reject your god, but I would be opposed for ethical reasons to have anything to do with him. If I were forced to be in proximity of him, experiencing his essence without any respite, it would be torturous. If any other persona from history or mythology forced a person to knowingly and purposefully endure suffering, would that be considered loving?

[chocolatechip]

I'm trying to imagine myself in this scenario. I not only reject your god, but I would be opposed for ethical reasons to have anything to do with him. If I were forced to be in proximity of him, experiencing his essence without any respite, it would be torturous. If any other persona from history or mythology forced a person to knowingly and purposefully endure suffering, would that be considered loving?

God doesn't determine any individual's response to Him.  He loves us so much that He gave us the free will to choose whether or not to come to Him.  His Essence does not change.

 

He doesn't predestine some to want to draw close to Him and others to want to run far away from Him. That is on us: our actions, our choices, our responses.

 

Like I said above, God IS love. He is The One Who Is. He doesn't change Himself. What changes is each of our responses to Him. He doesn't WANT anyone to suffer from an aversion to His presence. He loves everyone and desires that everyone come to Him. But because of free will we can make that choice or opt to reject that option.

[milovany]

I'm trying to imagine myself in this scenario. I not only reject your god, but I would be opposed for ethical reasons to have anything to do with him. If I were forced to be in proximity of him, experiencing his essence without any respite, it would be torturous. If any other persona from history or mythology forced a person to knowingly and purposefully endure suffering, would that be considered loving?

 

Orthodox theology teaches there isn't anywhere God isn't (He's "everywhere present and fillest all things"), so in eternity, there's no separate hell where God isn't where those that didn't seek Him in life will be.  There's just everything in the presence of God.  For those that didn't seek Him in life, having "worked out their salvation" through repentance, being in His presence will be torturous as you describe -- but not because God isn't loving and merciful, rather because they don't want to be with Him.  He can't not be somewhere, so it's not like He's forcing people to be in His presence, per your question.  It's that everything is in His presence, and for some that's a good thing and for others, like sitting for hours with an old great aunt that you really don't like, it's not so pleasant. 

[FaithManor]

I am not EO. However, I cannot be described by any stretch as protestant, not anymore. My view of "hell" is more in line with the EO interpretation except in one aspect, I think God loves so much that He has no desire to torture anyone even if they reject Him, so I believe that those who do not want to be in His presence cease to exist, and those that did not reject, remain in his presence. I think interpretations of "hell" and stories about it have been grossly wrong concerning something that is very symbolic, and more representative of what we go through on earth, than in eternity.

 

I think embracing Sola Scripture is not wise for people. I used to be a part of that tradition, but no longer believe that way and haven't for a long time. The human brain, in it's current state, is not capable of understanding it in it's fullness. But, there are some pretty hard core words of the Jesus to be pondered, one of which "Judge not, lest ye be judged". I prefer to act in compassion towards others and not worry about eternity for them. Not my job. That's the bosses job, and I don't want His job! LOL. It's very freeing to let go of that burden. It's nice to interact with my fellow humans and not feel the need to judge their souls. Well, okay...I'm not perfect. I get pretty judgy about things like pedophilia and such...then it's kind of nice to entertain thoughts of eternal damnation and a cozy hot spot for those that commit crimes of this nature, LOL! I'm not "there" yet. :)

[SunnyDays]

I am not EO. However, I cannot be described by any stretch as protestant, not anymore. My view of "hell" is more in line with the EO interpretation except in one aspect, I think God loves so much that He has no desire to torture anyone even if they reject Him, so I believe that those who do not want to be in His presence cease to exist, and those that did not reject, remain in his presence. I think interpretations of "hell" and stories about it have been grossly wrong concerning something that is very symbolic, and more representative of what we go through on earth, than in eternity.

 

I think embracing Sola Scripture is not wise for people. I used to be a part of that tradition, but no longer believe that way and haven't for a long time. The human brain, in it's current state, is not capable of understanding it in it's fullness. But, there are some pretty hard core words of the Jesus to be pondered, one of which "Judge not, lest ye be judged". I prefer to act in compassion towards others and not worry about eternity for them. Not my job. That's the bosses job, and I don't want His job! LOL. It's very freeing to let go of that burden. It's nice to interact with my fellow humans and not feel the need to judge their souls. Well, okay...I'm not perfect. I get pretty judgy about things like pedophilia and such...then it's kind of nice to entertain thoughts of eternal damnation and a cozy hot spot for those that commit crimes of this nature, LOL! I'm not "there" yet. :)

 

 

Faith, I've been pondering a lot of the same questions, which is one reason I asked.  I've been around some people recently who teach not only sola scriptura, but all literalism, all the time.  It just doesn't compute in my brain.  I think your take on the afterlife makes a lot of sense as well, and I've wondered about that scenario myself.

 

Milovany and Princess Mommy, thanks for your responses.  That was along the lines I *thought* the Orthodox believed, but I wanted to be sure.  :)

 

[albeto.]

God doesn't determine any individual's response to Him.  He loves us so much that He gave us the free will to choose whether or not to come to Him.  His Essence does not change.

 

He doesn't predestine some to want to draw close to Him and others to want to run far away from Him. That is on us: our actions, our choices, our responses.

 

Like I said above, God IS love. He is The One Who Is. He doesn't change Himself. What changes is each of our responses to Him. He doesn't WANT anyone to suffer from an aversion to His presence. He loves everyone and desires that everyone come to Him. But because of free will we can make that choice or opt to reject that option.

 

I'm not talking about determining my response, but about forcing me in a position he knows will bring me pain and suffering. 

 

If hell isn't about punishment, like conventional non-Orthodox theology suggests, then it would be a matter of knowingly keeping me in a position of victimization. I cannot think of any other figure in history or mythology to whom we could subscribe that kind of behavior as being loving. How would I reconcile this behavior with being loving if I wouldn't be expected to do so for anyone else, kwim?

[albeto.]

Orthodox theology teaches there isn't anywhere God isn't (He's "everywhere present and fillest all things"),

 

So if I don't notice him here and now, I might not notice him for eternity?

 

For those that didn't seek Him in life, having "worked out their salvation" through repentance, being in His presence will be torturous as you describe -- but not because God isn't loving and merciful, rather because they don't want to be with Him.

 

That's my question. How would I reconcile this torture with a loving being? When a person tells us they love us but they hurt us, we describe the relationship as abusive, and we encourage people to work it out if possible, leave if necessary, but not to feel compelled to endure the abuse just because the abuser professes love (even if he or she genuinely feels it). I don't mean to sound offensive, but if I remove the specific character from the equation (God), I'm left with a situation that would raise red flags in any other context.

 

He can't not be somewhere, so it's not like He's forcing people to be in His presence, per your question.  It's that everything is in His presence, and for some that's a good thing and for others, like sitting for hours with an old great aunt that you really don't like, it's not so pleasant.

 

If God's love is like a burning sun or burning fire or whatever, it would be about a bazillion times worse that having to visit with a crotchety old aunt. It would be, I imagine, quite traumatizing. If the aunt refused to leave me because she loved me, I would think her rude and inconsiderate. If a god whose presence was like a burning fire refused to leave me, I wouldn't think anything less, kwim?

[milovany]

I'm not talking about determining my response, but about forcing me in a position he knows will bring me pain and suffering. 

 

If hell isn't about punishment, like conventional non-Orthodox theology suggests, then it would be a matter of knowingly keeping me in a position of victimization. I cannot think of any other figure in history or mythology to whom we could subscribe that kind of behavior as being loving. How would I reconcile this behavior with being loving if I wouldn't be expected to do so for anyone else, kwim?

 

You know, maybe it's not going to be much different than what you're experiencing right now, albeto, except (according to our beliefs), you'll know you were wrong and that there is in fact a loving God that was with you all the way through life (or wanted to be).  He's not going to force you to go to church in heaven, he's not going to chuckle at you for having not sought Him in life in an "I told you so!" kind of way.  You'll be in His presence and I guess have regret because you'll then know what you rejected, and that it was good.  Eternal regret could be pretty hellish, I think. 

 

But you did (and still do) have the opportunity in life to choose Him. At this point, you've said "no" by saying you don't believe He exists.  You know that according to early Christianity theology that in doing so your eternity is at stake.  You've made choices now that can have eternal consequences.  It's your choice.  He honors that. 

 

[Guest]

I don't have much to add except to say that CS Lewis worked with this idea in The Last Battle with the dwarves who stayed in the hut even though they were invited out into the plain.  

 

He also worked with this idea in The Great Divorce.  

 

NB:  I'm not claiming CS Lewis as an Orthodox writer, but pointing out some fiction that has worked with this idea.  

 

Edited:  to italicize book names

 

 

[albeto.]

You know, maybe it's not going to be much different than what you're experiencing right now, albeto, except (according to our beliefs), you'll know you were wrong and that there is in fact a loving God that was with you all the way through life (or wanted to be).  He's not going to force you to go to church in heaven, he's not going to chuckle at you for having not sought Him in life in an "I told you so!" kind of way.  You'll be in His presence and I guess have regret because you'll then know what you rejected, and that it was good.  Eternal regret could be pretty hellish, I think. 

 

But you did (and still do) have the opportunity in life to choose Him. At this point, you've said "no" by saying you don't believe He exists.  You know that according to early Christianity theology that in doing so your eternity is at stake.  You've made choices now that can have eternal consequences.  It's your choice.  He honors that. 

 

Thank you for your kindness. I had, and took, the opportunity to believe in God and Jesus and the claims of the Christian faith in general and specifically as explained by the Roman Catholic church. I reject it now and I would actively reject any new invitation for moral and ethical reasons, so what you've said in the bold is interesting to me. If I'm in his presence, will I be cognizant of the rest of you and your happiness? Will be ostracized from everyone else for eternity? As a social animal, being rejected like that would be emotionally and mentally torturous, and that's something God would know and would allow, and that's what I'm having trouble reconciling all this with being loving. 

[Pam in CT]

I don't have much to add except to say that CS Lewis worked with this idea in The Last Battle with the dwarves who stayed in the hut even though they were invited out into the plain.  

 

He also worked with this idea in The Great Divorce.  

 

NB:  I'm not claiming CS Lewis as an Orthodox writer, but pointing out some fiction that has worked with this idea.  

 

Edited:  to italicize book names

 

Not not EO, not Christian, didn't vote; but Great Divorce was immensely interesting, and helpful, to me.

 

 

albeto - Mostly-kidding but sorta-serious: What if, when you get there, it turns out God does exist, but not in the patriarchal or law-giving or creed-testing or judgmental or anthropomorphic form that you never believed in -- more, say, a fun-loving, 84,000 doors-of-understanding, Dalai Lama-but-disembodied type of good cheer and compassion?  

 

Would it be Aunt Evil-excruciating to be near such a God?  (And if so... wouldn't such a God say, Go in peace, but I'm always here for you in the event that you change your mind  ?

[milovany]

Thank you for your kindness. I had, and took, the opportunity to believe in God and Jesus and the claims of the Christian faith in general and specifically as explained by the Roman Catholic church. I reject it now and I would actively reject any new invitation for moral and ethical reasons, so what you've said in the bold is interesting to me. If I'm in his presence, will I be cognizant of the rest of you and your happiness? Will be ostracized from everyone else for eternity? As a social animal, being rejected like that would be emotionally and mentally torturous, and that's something God would know and would allow, and that's what I'm having trouble reconciling all this with being loving. 

 

I don't know.  Orthodoxy doesn't know.  We don't have all the answers and have never claimed to have everything figure out to the "t." 

 

[Orthodox6]

Thank you for your kindness. I had, and took, the opportunity to believe in God and Jesus and the claims of the Christian faith in general and specifically as explained by the Roman Catholic church. I reject it now and I would actively reject any new invitation for moral and ethical reasons, so what you've said in the bold is interesting to me. If I'm in his presence, will I be cognizant of the rest of you and your happiness? Will be ostracized from everyone else for eternity? As a social animal, being rejected like that would be emotionally and mentally torturous, and that's something God would know and would allow, and that's what I'm having trouble reconciling all this with being loving. 

 

May you be blessed in your search for truth, and healed of whatever pain you have undergone during that search!

 

Sometimes I think more notice should be taken of what it means when we affirm that "God is love." 

 

For Orthodox Christians, it is impossible to think of God as rejoicing in the condemnation of any person.  We do not believe, and never have believed, in a vengeful God who hurls unrepentant souls into the lake of fire, gleefully rubbing His metaphorical hands at the sight of suffering.  Such distorted belief insults God!  Far from that, God endures illimitable sadness at the loss of fellowship with any one of the precious human beings whom He created.  But such is the enormous "gamble" when He Who is Love instills free will into the soul.  Free will allows me to walk away from Him who loves me more than I, myself, ever could know how to love.  Talk about freedom!  I, a created being, by means of my free will, have the ability to hurt Love by turning my back.  I cannot be coerced into loving God.  I must choose to love Him.  He never, ever will force me.  But if I don't choose to turn toward Him, He will feel the pain of losing my personal love. 

 

[Laurie4b]

Thank you for your kindness. I had, and took, the opportunity to believe in God and Jesus and the claims of the Christian faith in general and specifically as explained by the Roman Catholic church. I reject it now and I would actively reject any new invitation for moral and ethical reasons, so what you've said in the bold is interesting to me. If I'm in his presence, will I be cognizant of the rest of you and your happiness? Will be ostracized from everyone else for eternity? As a social animal, being rejected like that would be emotionally and mentally torturous, and that's something God would know and would allow, and that's what I'm having trouble reconciling all this with being loving. 

 

It seems a nonsensical question since you don't believe in him.

[milovany]

So if I don't notice him here and now, I might not notice him for eternity?

 

Hmmm, I don't think that's the way it would work because right now you don't believe in Him.  Then, you will. 

 

 

That's my question. How would I reconcile this torture with a loving being? When a person tells us they love us but they hurt us, we describe the relationship as abusive, and we encourage people to work it out if possible, leave if necessary, but not to feel compelled to endure the abuse just because the abuser professes love (even if he or she genuinely feels it). I don't mean to sound offensive, but if I remove the specific character from the equation (God), I'm left with a situation that would raise red flags in any other context.

 

See Orthodox6's reply below for this.  God does not hurt us, we hurt ourselves, albeto.  It seems you want to put that on God rather than taking responsibility for it yourself. 

 

 

If God's love is like a burning sun or burning fire or whatever, it would be about a bazillion times worse that having to visit with a crotchety old aunt. It would be, I imagine, quite traumatizing. If the aunt refused to leave me because she loved me, I would think her rude and inconsiderate. If a god whose presence was like a burning fire refused to leave me, I wouldn't think anything less, kwim?

 

You're right, every analogy for what God is like eventually fails somehow.  The aunt can leave, though, and God can't.  God just IS and is everywhere present.  You've been forewarned that you'll be with Him in eternity because He's everywhere present.  Should you choose to continue rejecting Him anyway, it's your decision that makes it a horrible eternity, not His being.  If you insist that He's horrible because He's allowing you an eternity you chose, instead of forcing something on you that you were not interested in at the end of your life, then you're wanting Him to take away your freedom of choice.  If your parent, or any other authority figure, didn't allow you to suffer the consequences of your choices, and overrode your determined choices, that wouldn't be chill, right?  That might be considered by many to be abusive and authoritarian. 

[Orthodox6]

It seems a nonsensical question since you don't believe in him.

 

Perhaps, but not necessarily.  Unless Albeto deliberately is insulting other people, a genuine question is a genuine question.  Salvation is not granted by God until the end of ones life, and the search for God can continue up until the final breath is drawn.  I would not feel comfortable turning away any honest questioner. 

[albeto.]

albeto - Mostly-kidding but sorta-serious: What if, when you get there, it turns out God does exist, but not in the patriarchal or law-giving or creed-testing or judgmental or anthropomorphic form that you never believed in -- more, say, a fun-loving, 84,000 doors-of-understanding, Dalai Lama-but-disembodied type of good cheer and compassion?

 

A can see the appeal of something like this for a hundred years, maybe even a thousand, but I can only imagine that by 10,000 years I would either desire to be bored, go insane, or have been transformed so greatly that the essence of who I am today would no longer exist. The simplest scenario of heaven paints the picture of never ending joy and happiness, enjoying being in the presence of a perfect being (that's not exactly biblical, but it is popular). I can't imagine the novelty of that taking more than a few months to wear off, but I am admittedly easily distracted. If an eternal existence is understood to convey a perfect kind of existence forever, I think that's a paradox and therefore impossible. What makes experiences so valuable to us as humans is knowing they are finite, knowing they will end, knowing they could be worse, and knowing they are ultimately intangible and so are precious in our memories. Challenges are pursued because we look forward to culminating a particular experience by celebrating its completion. Imagine an existence in which everything we ever want we get. From where would we get that giddy feeling of anticipation that makes Christmas morning or the date where you expect him to pop the question so magical? If every experience was assured success, every experience was assured pleasure, how could we measure its value?

 

If this fun-loving awesomely cool creature allowed those I love and hold dear to suffer for eternity, will I be cognizant of that? If so, that would weigh on my conscience too much to enjoy any immediate experience. If not, what will have happened to my memories? My memories are what makes me who I am. I am exactly who I am precisely because of the memories of my past experiences. I am who I am because I have spent a lifetime attributing new information onto my personal collection of memories to give them new and valuable meaning. What about those whom I love and cherish? They are who they are because of their memories, but what about those memories that cause pain? Will their pain be taken away? If so, will they be the same person I love and respect? How could they be if their memories are either gone as if they never existed, or reduced such that they no longer cause the same reactions? How will that affect their personality, and how will that affect our relationship?

 

So in answer to your mostly kidding but sorta serious question, No thank you. ;)

 

Would it be Aunt Evil-excruciating to be near such a God?  (And if so... wouldn't such a God say, Go in peace, but I'm always here for you in the event that you change your mind  ?

 

It would be excruciating I think, because at the very least it would strip me of my autonomy. I would not be me. I would be a mere shadow of what Aunt Evil desires me to be - a walking, talking #1 Fan (if praising and singing worship songs is on the agenda), or at least a member of the Never Unhappy Guild put up in her labyrinth like home.

 

But if I could leave, to where would I go? What would I do? With whom would I hang out, relate, collect new memories? How would I escape the mind-numbing atrophy of a never ending series of perfect experiences? In what way would happiness and joy have meaning if I were separated from everyone who was happy? It sounds like hell either way, if I may be honest. 

[Orthodox6]

Did someone allege that after death all memories are taken from a person?  Such is not the case. 

 

I admit that, by now, I begin to feel that you are typing purposely provoking responses.  Please excuse if that is not what is going on.

[albeto.]

I don't know.  Orthodoxy doesn't know.  We don't have all the answers and have never claimed to have everything figure out to the "t." 

 

 

Oh man, this brings up just so many follow-up questions for me!

[albeto.]

May you be blessed in your search for truth, and healed of whatever pain you have undergone during that search!

 

There is no pain with this, but thank you for the kind sentiment. :)

 

Sometimes I think more notice should be taken of what it means when we affirm that "God is love." 

 

For Orthodox Christians, it is impossible to think of God as rejoicing in the condemnation of any person.  We do not believe, and never have believed, in a vengeful God who hurls unrepentant souls into the lake of fire, gleefully rubbing His metaphorical hands at the sight of suffering.  Such distorted belief insults God!  Far from that, God endures illimitable sadness at the loss of fellowship with any one of the precious human beings whom He created.  But such is the enormous "gamble" when He Who is Love instills free will into the soul.  Free will allows me to walk away from Him who loves me more than I, myself, ever could know how to love.  Talk about freedom!  I, a created being, by means of my free will, have the ability to hurt Love by turning my back.  I cannot be coerced into loving God.  I must choose to love Him.  He never, ever will force me.  But if I don't choose to turn toward Him, He will feel the pain of losing my personal love.

 

I'm not a protestant, but I can't imagine anyone imagines God gleefully rubbing his metaphorical hands at the sight of suffering. I think the assumption that anyone does trivializes protestant theology, but I do get your meaning, and I agree that it would help to elaborate a bit about what is meant by "God is love." When you talk about turning your back on Love, would you not interpret your actions instead as turning towards what you think is good and noble at the time? Milovany speaks passionately about her conversion, but what if she was right the first time and God really is best understood through the protestant theology she rejected? I can't imagine she interprets turning her back on Love, but rather turning towards a more accurate understanding of Love (sorry to use you as a prop in an example, Milovany! I hope you don't mind :)). 

 

Well okay, to leave Milo out of this, when I realized I could no longer subscribe to the faith of my church, or even the faith of my religion, I didn't feel like I was turning my back on Love. I felt like I was finding a better, more ethical, reliable embodiment of Love. In time, I began to question not only the claims I had accepted as faith ("we can't know, but still we believe"), but the character of God. In my opinion, the character of God, and Jesus, and what little I know of Allah, are rather reprehensible. I would not only reject them again given the opportunity to follow (which I am free to do in my country), but I would reject them if I found myself face to face with them. So, he won't force me, but I am forced by the very brain he supposedly created to reject him. 

 

This image of heaven that I am gathering from this thread is one of being forced to endure the presence of a god who I find morally problematic, to put it lightly. This image of heaven that I am gathering suggests that while it's not my choice to reject him (after all, it wasn't my choice where to be born, what kind of parents I would have, how my brain would respond to split-second emergencies, or the patterns of behavior that would become habits that simply escape my awareness), I will still be punished for rejecting him. The only thing is, this punishment is surrounded by vocabulary of love. But see, that's what abusers do too, they surround abusive behavior in a vocabulary of love. If the circumstances of my experiences lead me to interpret God as an emotional abuser, would it be really be virtuous for me to forgive and trust him? Wouldn't that make my affection a mercenary move, and not a genuine reflection of sincere love and affection? But how can I sincerely love one whose behavior is understood as abusive? If I don't do that for anyone else, why then for God? And if I'm being true to my convictions, do I really have the freedom to choose him? Genuinely? And if I don't, then am I not being punished for making the wrong choice?

 

ETA: I left this sounding like I'm making a statement, when I should ask, what am I missing? What's the difference between what I'm imagining the reality to be and what you're imagining (expecting) the reality to be?

[albeto.]

It seems a nonsensical question since you don't believe in him.

 

In context of the thread, what is the Orthodox Christian view on heaven and hell, I don't think it's nonsensical at all. I think it's quite a logical question to ask. 

[albeto.]

You've been forewarned that you'll be with Him in eternity because He's everywhere present.  Should you choose to continue rejecting Him anyway, it's your decision that makes it a horrible eternity, not His being.

But I've also been forewarned that if I don't accept Allah I will suffer eternal consequences as well. So have you, come to think of it (okay, I'm only assuming, but I suspect it's a pretty accurate assumption to make). Don't you think a choice of eternal consequences ought to come with a bit more reliable information?

 

If you insist that He's horrible because He's allowing you an eternity you chose, instead of forcing something on you that you were not interested in at the end of your life, then you're wanting Him to take away your freedom of choice.  If your parent, or any other authority figure, didn't allow you to suffer the consequences of your choices, and overrode your determined choices, that wouldn't be chill, right?  That might be considered by many to be abusive and authoritarian.

 

My opinion isn't based on the idea that he's allowing me a choice between eternal experiences, my opinion is based on far more complex issues than that. I just responded a bunch in my last post, so hopefully that will address the idea of how free I think our choices really are, and the ethical implication of constructing an eternal reality based on this process. 

[milovany]

Oh man, this brings up just so many follow-up questions for me!

 

Which probably brings up more "I don't know's" LOL.  Not really, there might be some answers we could attempt to give.  :D

 

The amazing thing, to me, is that even though there's a lot of "mystery" in Orthodoxy, and no official church-wide standard catechism, there's little to no variation in theology -- even after 2000 years (across those 2000 years and/or around the world).

[albeto.]

Perhaps, but not necessarily.  Unless Albeto deliberately is insulting other people, a genuine question is a genuine question.  Salvation is not granted by God until the end of ones life, and the search for God can continue up until the final breath is drawn.  I would not feel comfortable turning away any honest questioner. 

 

Thank you. I really do appreciate this. I hope I don't come across as trying to argue for the sake of argument. As a Catholic, I allowed myself to simply let many of these questions go. Now I have no reason to do that, and so my curiosity is quite genuine. Also, I really wasn't familiar with Orthodoxy at all when I started seriously questioning my faith. So many of these ideas are new to me and they inspire new questions. I really do appreciate your willingness to accept my questions as genuine. 

[albeto.]

Which probably brings up more "I don't know's" LOL.  Not really, there might be some answers we could attempt to give.  :D

 

The amazing thing, to me, is that even though there's a lot of "mystery" in Orthodoxy, and no official church-wide standard catechism, there's little to no variation in theology -- even after 2000 years (across those 2000 years and/or around the world).

 

No doubt! I think Orthodoxy seems to have some good qualities for longevity: the rituals that are passed from generation to generation, and the amorphous boundaries of what the faith really entails.  

[milovany]

Thank you. I really do appreciate this. I hope I don't come across as trying to argue for the sake of argument. As a Catholic, I allowed myself to simply let many of these questions go. Now I have no reason to do that, and so my curiosity is quite genuine. Also, I really wasn't familiar with Orthodoxy at all when I started seriously questioning my faith. So many of these ideas are new to me and they inspire new questions. I really do appreciate your willingness to accept my questions as genuine. 

 

 

In light of this, I do apologize for a paragraph I had in an earlier post of mine in which I suggested you were arguing for argument's sake (I removed it, but you may have seen it).  Genuine questions are always a good thing. 

[albeto.]

In light of this, I do apologize for a paragraph I had in an earlier post of mine in which I suggested you were arguing for argument's sake (I removed it, but you may have seen it).  Genuine questions are always a good thing. 

 

No worries. 

 

(I didn't see it by the way, so how sweet of you!)

 

:)

 

 

ETA: I just read back and saw a post in which I can imagine that would be an easy expectation. I hope my edit helps. 

[Laurie4b]

In context of the thread, what is the Orthodox Christian view on heaven and hell, I don't think it's nonsensical at all. I think it's quite a logical question to ask. 

 

I apologize as I see my wording could be construed as unkind. You answered my question below, though, which was curiosity about why you were asking/debating about something you seem quite clear that you don't believe.  I should have phrased it more that way. I was coming from:

 

ETA: If I didn't believe in fairies and someone was speaking about their characteristics, why would I keep asking about a belief about fairies that I found contradictory?  To me that wouldn't make sense. But you've explained that the Orthodox view is new to you.

 

[albeto.]

I apologize as I see my wording could be construed as unkind. You answered my question below, though, which was curiosity about why you were asking/debating about something you seem quite clear that you don't believe.  I should have phrased it more that way. I was coming from:

 

ETA: If I didn't believe in fairies and someone was speaking about their characteristics, why would I keep asking about a belief about fairies that I found contradictory?  To me that wouldn't make sense. But you've explained that the Orthodox view is new to you.

 

 

No worries. It's all good.

 

:)

[Pam in CT]

albeto, I am so interested in so much of what you are saying and would like to follow up with more than just the two ideas below that evoked a particularly quick reaction in me...  but wanted to let you know that I will be signing off very soon for Yom Kippur and will not be back until Sunday.  Probably this thread isn't the best venue for such divergent thoughts anyway.  My apologies to the always gracious EO ladies for the hijack, which is definitely NOT meant in any way to be disrespectful of the ideas outlined in other parts of the thread, many of which are very beautiful to me.

 

 

Re: imagining eternal hell as boredom ( :lol: )

A can see the appeal of something like this for a hundred years, maybe even a thousand, but I can only imagine that by 10,000 years I would either desire to be bored, go insane, or have been transformed so greatly that the essence of who I am today would no longer exist. The simplest scenario of heaven paints the picture of never ending joy and happiness, enjoying being in the presence of a perfect being (that's not exactly biblical, but it is popular). I can't imagine the novelty of that taking more than a few months to wear off, but I am admittedly easily distracted. If an eternal existence is understood to convey a perfect kind of existence forever, I think that's a paradox and therefore impossible.

 

_____

 

 

So in answer to your mostly kidding but sorta serious question, No thank you. ;)

 

Aside from being hilarious... well, I agree.  I can't actually imagine anything.at.all that wouldn't get old after 10,000 years.  Harps and ambrosia, books and netflix, tea and cupcakes... doesn't matter; nothing.  Mostly-kidding but sorta-serious, the idea of eternity is mighty hard to wrap a finite mortal mind around.  (Mine too, FWIW.)

 

 

 

re: nearness to even a fun-loving universalist non-punishing compassionate God as excruciating:

 

It would be excruciating I think, because at the very least it would strip me of my autonomy. 

 

Yes.  Not all religious visions of what might come next entail loss of the self / personality / autonomy... but many do.  FWIW, that is part of how I read one of the ideas in Great Divorce -- that "hell" is not a place but a state of mind comprised of clinging-fast-to-what-we-cannot-bring-ourselves-to-give-up, which could be vices but could also be, for example, our children or our sense of self... It can indeed be excruciating while we're alive to contemplate the loss of our selves after death...

 

...although I'm not sure it works out in practice to being much different, or more or less excruciating, than contemplating that it's simply over, when it's over, KWIM?...

[albeto.]

Re: imagining eternal hell as boredom ( :lol: )

 

You mean heaven is eternal boredom? ;)

 

Aside from being hilarious... well, I agree.  I can't actually imagine anything.at.all that wouldn't get old after 10,000 years.  Harps and ambrosia, books and netflix, tea and cupcakes... doesn't matter; nothing.  Mostly-kidding but sorta-serious, the idea of eternity is mighty hard to wrap a finite mortal mind around.  (Mine too, FWIW.)

 

This concept confuses me - a finite mortal mind. Yes, our minds are limited, but they're not completely ignorant. We can and conceive, quiet well actually, such things as stimulation, pleasure, pain, emotion, perception, memory, relationship, fear, security, time, limitations, communication, etc etc etc. Why would our minds be unqualified to use what we have in relation to what we do and don't know only as it pertains to God? We encourage yourself to stop asking questions when it comes to this one subject?

 

re: nearness to even a fun-loving universalist non-punishing compassionate God as excruciating:

 

Only because these attributes, "fun-loving, universalist, non-punitive, compassionate" are inaccurate. If it's fun to knowingly put a cognizant, self-aware person in a position of suffering, we don't consider than compassionate. In any other context, that would be explained more along the lines of sociopathic behavior. Orthodox Christians consider God to be exempt from this characteristic. I'm curious why. The only thing I can think of relates to my own experience - encouraging myself to stop asking questions when it came to this subject. An appeal to faith is applied instead, and the virtue of belief, of trust is valued greater than the virtue of exploring the options. That is how I understand it.

 

Yes.  Not all religious visions of what might come next entail loss of the self / personality / autonomy... but many do.  FWIW, that is part of how I read one of the ideas in Great Divorce -- that "hell" is not a place but a state of mind comprised of clinging-fast-to-what-we-cannot-bring-ourselves-to-give-up, which could be vices but could also be, for example, our children or our sense of self... It can indeed be excruciating while we're alive to contemplate the loss of our selves after death...

 

When I was Catholic, I was attracted most to the contemplative, mystic Saints like St. John of the Cross and St. Catherine of Sienna. These ideas, giving up all those "attachments" that distracted the human soul from loving God, were appealing to me. And well, why not? You can't not find something to work on, something to focus your attention on. It was applied within a vocabulary of love, and affection, and gratitude, and all kinds of virtues that I respect and admire and value even today. It was a very attractive way of thinking for me. It was very poetic, very romantic I think (and I don't mean that in a cheesy way, but in a way that focuses on the emotion of love and affection and empathy and community in a good way). But yeah, ultimately, the end goal is a loss of the sense of self, a "divine union" with God. This was heaven as I understood it - a state of being in perfect union with "perfect love." I understood purgatory to be the state of being in which these things to which I was inordinately attached would come to my attention so I could willingly give them up (like C.S. Lewis' red lizard analogy). It would feel, I expected, not unlike an emotional purging fire (from where the name purgatory comes). It's why protestant theology never did appeal to me, as I understood that to promote the idea that we wouldn't have to be cognizant of these things, that they would simply drop away (or odder yet, be "cloaked" whereby God would simply agree to not be bothered by it).

 

I'd be curious to know what Orthodox Christians believe about what happens to sin, what happens to one's "affections" as St. Catherine of Sienna called them. The bible says nothing unclean can enter heaven. Something has to be done with these unclean loyalties / sin (please just summarize it, even if it's vague - it's much easier and more convenient than reading lengthy articles and listening to long podcasts).

 

...although I'm not sure it works out in practice to being much different, or more or less excruciating, than contemplating that it's simply over, when it's over, KWIM?...

 

I think it's easier to contemplate nothingness. After all, I was completely nonexistent before my birth and it didn't bother me at all. ;)

 

I hope you had a pleasant Yom Kippur!

[SarahW]

 

Re: imagining eternal hell as boredom ( :lol: )

Aside from being hilarious... well, I agree.  I can't actually imagine anything.at.all that wouldn't get old after 10,000 years.  Harps and ambrosia, books and netflix, tea and cupcakes... doesn't matter; nothing.  Mostly-kidding but sorta-serious, the idea of eternity is mighty hard to wrap a finite mortal mind around.  (Mine too, FWIW.)

 

fwiw - while the popular conception of heaven is sitting around on a cloud playing a harp for all eternity, the actual Christian conception is quite a bit different.

 

A modern and readable explanation of the actual Christian idea of the eschaton is N.T. Wright's book Surprised by Hope.

 

Now, I realize I just wrote a post which says that this topic is so big you need to go read a whole book on it. But if you want a sound bite version, there's also THIS.   :D

 

 

 

caveat: if you read the book, be warned that Wright doesn't understand Plato nearly as well as he should. It's annoying.But his overall point still stands.

[Orthodox6]

Albeto, when a sincere confession is offered to God by an Orthodox Christian, during the sacrament of confession, those sins are wiped out, obliterated, forgiven completely by God.  (Catholicism would not be much different, would it?) 

 

Is this what you are asking?

 

EO people spend their entire lives repenting and trying again to do better.  We do not believe in "once saved, always saved."  That concept leaves us scratching our heads in bewilderment.  Salvation is a process that takes a lifetime. 

[albeto.]

Albeto, when a sincere confession is offered to God by an Orthodox Christian, during the sacrament of confession, those sins are wiped out, obliterated, forgiven completely by God.  (Catholicism would not be much different, would it?) 

 

Is this what you are asking?

 

EO people spend their entire lives repenting and trying again to do better.  We do not believe in "once saved, always saved."  That concept leaves us scratching our heads in bewilderment.  Salvation is a process that takes a lifetime. 

 

As I understand [understood] it, the forgiveness of sins is a different issue from giving up the attachment to the thing that inspired that sin. For example, if my sin is one of gossip, my sin could be absolved during the sacrament of reconciliation, but the thing that inspired that action, that lust for unnecessary, juicy information would be something I would have to give up by my own will. I would try to give it up during this lifetime, but if I couldn't, I would have the opportunity to give it up after death (during the time we call purgatory). Giving it up would feel like C.S. Lewis' well-known imagery from the Great Divorce, I think, the one about the red lizard. I would have to knowingly and willingly give up my desire for knowing things about other people (which is why I would have to know it, which is why the idea of sins being suddenly gone or cloaked confused me). So the behavior itself would have been absolved and no punishment would be expected, but the desire to know information to which I have no authority would be understood as a kind of character flaw. It would be a kind of character flaw because my character, my personality - the thing that made me me (my soul?) - would have split loyalties (or "affections" as they are called by St. Catherine of Sienna). Split between loving and pursuing God's interests, and loving and pursuing my own. That was what I understood as the sin - the desire to love and pursue my own interests apart from God's will. That's what I understood purgatory to address - a place to expose to us what our minds are blind to so that we would be clean, righteous, and able to enter heaven, God's glory, unification, etc. I think you guys have a similar concept, like theosis or something? 

 

OSAS shouldn't leave you scratching your head. It's perfectly biblical. It's just that it doesn't fit within the greater context of your theology. 

[Orthodox6]

Thanks for explaining.  You are speaking of what the EO call "the passions".  gluttony.  lust.  gossip.  sloth.  . . .  We do not have any "categories", such as "the seven . . .", or "major vs. venial", etc.  Sin is sin.  That's it. 

 

What matters over in our corner, so as to speak, is not whether an individual achieves full-and-final conquering of a passion.  Not achieving that complete success has no bearing on whether or not the individual is granted the joy of Heaven after death.  What does matter -- and matters intensely -- is whether the individual struggles with determination, despite continual failures, struggles to improve and to become free from the besetting passion.  If the individual genuinely seeks freedom from the slavery to that passion, begs God to help him with the struggle, and keeps on trying without yielding to despair -- then that individual is doing the most that God will ask of him. 

 

P.S.  We would not agree that OSAS "is Biblical".  It is an interpretation clung to by some faith groups, but not believed by ours. 

[albeto.]

Thanks for explaining.  You are speaking of what the EO call "the passions".  gluttony.  lust.  gossip.  sloth.  . . .  We do not have any "categories", such as "the seven . . .", or "major vs. venial", etc.  Sin is sin.  That's it. 

 

What matters over in our corner, so as to speak, is not whether an individual achieves full-and-final conquering of a passion.  Not achieving that complete success has no bearing on whether or not the individual is granted the joy of Heaven after death.  What does matter -- and matters intensely -- is whether the individual struggles with determination, despite continual failures, struggles to improve and to become free from the besetting passion.  If the individual genuinely seeks freedom from the slavery to that passion, begs God to help him with the struggle, and keeps on trying without yielding to despair -- then that individual is doing the most that God will ask of him. 

 

P.S.  We would not agree that OSAS "is Biblical".  It is an interpretation clung to by some faith groups, but not believed by ours. 

 

In EO theology, how is sin dealt with prior to heaven, or theosis? Is it forgotten? Cloaked? Given up? Something else?

 

If the struggle is what counts, what happens to those who have given up? People who have been taught to believe they can never amount to anything, or who have been taught to believe they are victims of greater bullies and survival depends on taking advantages as they come up, or have learned whatever message one might inadvertently pick up over the years, and genuinely believe they're doing the best possible, that they don't need to beg God for anything. Will the join me in suffering an existence of having to be near him?

 

I do recognize you don't agree OSAS is supported accurately by the bible. As a Catholic, that was my opinion as well. I guess I was uncomfortable with the head-scratching. It seemed a bit patronizing to me to suggest it was a bewildering concept. I imagine you're familiar with the bible verses and passages that support the idea, even if you aren't personally persuaded by it. 

[Guest]

As I understand [understood] it, the forgiveness of sins is a different issue from giving up the attachment to the thing that inspired that sin. For example, if my sin is one of gossip, my sin could be absolved during the sacrament of reconciliation, but the thing that inspired that action, that lust for unnecessary, juicy information would be something I would have to give up by my own will. I would try to give it up during this lifetime, but if I couldn't, I would have the opportunity to give it up after death (during the time we call purgatory). Giving it up would feel like C.S. Lewis' well-known imagery from the Great Divorce, I think, the one about the red lizard. I would have to knowingly and willingly give up my desire for knowing things about other people (which is why I would have to know it, which is why the idea of sins being suddenly gone or cloaked confused me). So the behavior itself would have been absolved and no punishment would be expected, but the desire to know information to which I have no authority would be understood as a kind of character flaw. It would be a kind of character flaw because my character, my personality - the thing that made me me (my soul?) - would have split loyalties (or "affections" as they are called by St. Catherine of Sienna). Split between loving and pursuing God's interests, and loving and pursuing my own. That was what I understood as the sin - the desire to love and pursue my own interests apart from God's will. That's what I understood purgatory to address - a place to expose to us what our minds are blind to so that we would be clean, righteous, and able to enter heaven, God's glory, unification, etc. I think you guys have a similar concept, like theosis or something? 

 

OSAS shouldn't leave you scratching your head. It's perfectly biblical. It's just that it doesn't fit within the greater context of your theology. 

 

I'm going to attempt a very very short response as I have to leave in about 5 minutes.

 

Orthodoxy has no parallel to purgatory.  Orthodox theologians have speculated on the concept, but it is just that: speculation--not dogma.  Most theologians reject the speculation.

 

Theosis is "union with Christ."  It is the goal of my life to be so like Christ that I actually become a Christian ("little Christ").  I have a long way to go.  The saints are clearly united with Christ, and still themselves--this is not about being "absorbed"--it is about becoming fully who I was meant to be--including my interests.  I don't think Christ is all offended that I am interested in photography.  That's part of who I am.  But I don't THINK it is who I AM (or want to be) that I ignore my family in my photographic pursuits, or spend all our savings on photographic equipment--in other words, am self-absorbed.  THAT is not what I was made to be.  I don't want to be that.  I can be a non-self-absorbed photographer--that's GREAT.  But I would hope that I am not stuck in self-absorption, that as I repent from self-absorption, I can learn to BE something else.  

 

The closest we have to "attachments" is "passions"--and some of them are OK when they are kept pure, away from pride and selfishness.  Eg. Anger.  Anger is good against injustice, bad when I am not getting my way.  Eating is fine for nutrition and even yumminess.  It is bad when it is gluttonous or when it causes us to be snobs or demanding.  This doesn't mean some people cannot be gourmet cooks; it means that they can be thankful with gourmet food, or with my cooking--or with a bowl of rice.  That's detaching oneself from the passion.  

 

Re: the lizard:  I am reminded of a Joan Rivers quip re: death: "Stop talking about 'He's in a better place!  Of course he's not!  He had a place in the HAMPTONS!"  

 

The red lizard might look like the Hamptons, and some would elect to keep such a beautiful home...if that was the best place they knew.   I probably would, if I thought heaven was about sitting on a cloud and playing a harp.  If the red lizard was my beautiful house, full of my own creations and choices and handiwork and so on... and the "heaven" was the Hamptons...I admit I would have to think twice.  But if the red lizard was the rough part of town, a rental that I ultimately could not keep...the choice becomes pretty clear.  Of course, if you don't believe in life after rental, or if you believe it is better to live in the house of your own creation, then the choice is also clear.  

 

Ultimately, it comes down to whose authority one submits to...who is the teacher...what is the goal.  And these are all things that each person decides on.

 

There is a lot more in your post that I would address if I could but I can't because of time and lack of ability.  Orthodoxy is a rich tapestry and I can't just pull out the red thread and explain it, because it interacts with the gold and the blue nearby and is part of a weft underlying all.  It is impossible to explain when one has already decided that the color "red" does not exist.  

 

I hope that in my speed I have not sounded harsh or mean.  It is not my intention.  I would not have responded at all except that there were a couple of things I wanted to set straight for the others who will read these posts.  

 

I can recommend books and podcasts for those who wish to understand these things further.  

 

ACK...now I'm LATE.  :0)

[Orthodox6]

I did not intend to sound patronizing, but to express puzzlement.  Nonetheless, few posters can know how the bare bones of printed speech may come across to some readers.  So if apology is needed to anyone, I offer it sincerely.

 

Despair (which I think you are describing) is a sin.  Giving up is despair.   

 

If someone does not see, or does not admit after honest self-scrutiny, that he is succumbing to a particular passion (or sin, if you prefer), then that person is spiritually blind -- a condition normally related to self-will, to refusing to admit the existence in himself of that sin, and to not desiring to change. 

 

Although your continuing questions are good ones, and I am not wishing to squelch discussion, I am going to observe at this point that I cannot answer all of your questions.  I do not possess the mind of God.  (That is not a sarcastic remark.)  One of the core qualities within Orthodox Christianity that triggered my life-long allegiance to the faith is the Orthodox religion's innate humility.  EO does not attempt to know everything.  There are questions to which we cannot, and are not going to, know the answers.  We do not have to itemize, categorize, systematize every morsel of extant and of possible knowledge.  We do not have to subdue the universe.  God is infinite.  Man's abilities and minds are finite.  Humility knows when to stop and admit, "We do not know.  God knows.  Glory be to God!"

 

 

 

[milovany]

...If it's fun to knowingly put a cognizant, self-aware person in a position of suffering, we don't consider than compassionate. In any other context, that would be explained more along the lines of sociopathic behavior. Orthodox Christians consider God to be exempt from this characteristic. I'm curious why....

 

I can't figure out how to say it differently but I'll try.  You said "to knowingly put" which presumes God is making the choice to put someone somewhere.  We're saying no to that, God would rather that person come and unite themselves with Him who is pure love, and He's provided a good path on which that can happen, in the church He established (there may be other paths, but we as Orthodox Christians know nothing of those, we leave those up to Him; we just know the church does function as a healing hospital for sick souls).  The arms are open like that of the father welcoming home the prodigal son.  The father didn't put his son in the pig pen, the son chose to walk away and live the way he did, ending up the in pig pen. The father would rather he have stayed under his care and provision.  The son said, "no, thanks" to that.  There's no thought of "why did the father put the son in the pigpen?" is there?  The son put himself there through his choices. It's the choice a person makes to reject God that puts them in the position they may find themselves in in eternity.  God hopes for a different outcome (and like the father of the story above will welcome any who will come when the time is available to do so). But he's not going to overrule the freedom a person has to make their choices. 

 

If that doesn't work, I'll let it alone.  Just thought it worth one more shot because my words have fallen short previously it seems.  If they fall short again, I'll know my presentation is lacking! 

[albeto.]

....Theosis is "union with Christ."  It is the goal of my life to be so like Christ that I actually become a Christian ("little Christ").  I have a long way to go.  The saints are clearly united with Christ, and still themselves--this is not about being "absorbed"--it is about becoming fully who I was meant to be--including my interests.  I don't think Christ is all offended that I am interested in photography.  That's part of who I am.  But I don't THINK it is who I AM (or want to be) that I ignore my family in my photographic pursuits, or spend all our savings on photographic equipment--in other words, am self-absorbed.  THAT is not what I was made to be.  I don't want to be that.  I can be a non-self-absorbed photographer--that's GREAT.  But I would hope that I am not stuck in self-absorption, that as I repent from self-absorption, I can learn to BE something else.  

 

The closest we have to "attachments" is "passions"--and some of them are OK when they are kept pure, away from pride and selfishness.  Eg. Anger.  Anger is good against injustice, bad when I am not getting my way.  Eating is fine for nutrition and even yumminess.  It is bad when it is gluttonous or when it causes us to be snobs or demanding.  This doesn't mean some people cannot be gourmet cooks; it means that they can be thankful with gourmet food, or with my cooking--or with a bowl of rice.  That's detaching oneself from the passion....

 

...

 

There is a lot more in your post that I would address if I could but I can't because of time and lack of ability.  Orthodoxy is a rich tapestry and I can't just pull out the red thread and explain it, because it interacts with the gold and the blue nearby and is part of a weft underlying all.  It is impossible to explain when one has already decided that the color "red" does not exist.  

 

...

 

ACK...now I'm LATE.  :0)

 

Thanks for taking the time to explain this. I do recognize the depth of the theology and the intricate play between ideas, beliefs, and dogmas (the "tapestry" image is a familiar one). 

 

So what do you envision heaven to be? A state of being or a physical reality? Will you be cognizant and aware, will you have mental thoughts, memories, emotions? Will you be an independent agent, or will you be a part of the divine entity? Will you have any privacy to your thoughts? Will you retain any negative memories, or negative emotions? Will you be cognizant of people like me suffering for all eternity? Will that bother you, do you think? Would you have any power to make a change?

 

Sorry you were late on my account. Fwiw, I genuinely appreciate the time you took for me! ^_^

 

I did not intend to sound patronizing, but to express puzzlement.  Nonetheless, few posters can know how the bare bones of printed speech may come across to some readers.  So if apology is needed to anyone, I offer it sincerely.

 

I didn't expect you meant to sound that way at all. I'm confused about the puzzlement, though. I mean, are you familiar with the verses that support the idea that once a person has accepted Christ, they have been made into a new creature, one of uncorruptible seed (holy spirit), and no longer tempted by sin? I was never persuaded with the line of arguing either ("stumbling" v. "sinning" seemed to be to be a poor reason to explain problematic behavior), but I could understand how others would be persuaded. After all, it's right there in the bible. It's pretty cut and dry if you have a different idea of the general context of the gospel message is. 

[albeto.]

Despair (which I think you are describing) is a sin.  Giving up is despair.  

 

If someone does not see, or does not admit after honest self-scrutiny, that he is succumbing to a particular passion (or sin, if you prefer), then that person is spiritually blind -- a condition normally related to self-will, to refusing to admit the existence in himself of that sin, and to not desiring to change.

 

I'm not sure I understand. On the one hand I think you mean that despair is a sin, and because sin is forgiven by God, despair would be forgiven by God and the individual might hope to achieve theosis. But you also talk about the need to recognize the value of self-scrutiny, to be able to identify one's inappropriate passion, and desire to improve on his or her particular blind spots. If one is incapable of doing that for whatever reason (never heard of this concept, or life experiences convince them this concept is as unpersuasive as the OSAS concept is to you), they won't know the value of self-scrutiny. They won't know to beg God for help. They won't be guilty of despair because they won't feel it. Does that mean they won't achieve theosis?

 

And as an aside, what's the best terminology to refer to this concept: getting to heaven, or theosis, or something else?

 

Although your continuing questions are good ones, and I am not wishing to squelch discussion, I am going to observe at this point that I cannot answer all of your questions.  I do not possess the mind of God.  (That is not a sarcastic remark.)  One of the core qualities within Orthodox Christianity that triggered my life-long allegiance to the faith is the Orthodox religion's innate humility.  EO does not attempt to know everything.  There are questions to which we cannot, and are not going to, know the answers.  We do not have to itemize, categorize, systematize every morsel of extant and of possible knowledge.  We do not have to subdue the universe.  God is infinite.  Man's abilities and minds are finite.  Humility knows when to stop and admit, "We do not know.  God knows.  Glory be to God!"

 

I do understand no one can know the answers to all these questions, not even the most studied theologian. I don't mean to give the impression I'm trying to learn Everything God Knows or anything like that. I'm just curious about those things you can know, the things your church teaches you to believe.

[albeto.]

I can't figure out how to say it differently but I'll try.  You said "to knowingly put" which presumes God is making the choice to put someone somewhere.  We're saying no to that, God would rather that person come and unite themselves with Him who is pure love, and He's provided a good path on which that can happen, in the church He established (there may be other paths, but we as Orthodox Christians know nothing of those, we leave those up to Him; we just know the church does function as a healing hospital for sick souls).  The arms are open like that of the father welcoming home the prodigal son.  The father didn't put his son in the pig pen, the son chose to walk away and live the way he did, ending up the in pig pen. The father would rather he have stayed under his care and provision.  The son said, "no, thanks" to that.  There's no thought of "why did the father put the son in the pigpen?" is there?  The son put himself there through his choices. It's the choice a person makes to reject God that puts them in the position they may find themselves in in eternity.  God hopes for a different outcome (and like the father of the story above will welcome any who will come when the time is available to do so). But he's not going to overrule the freedom a person has to make their choices. 

 

If that doesn't work, I'll let it alone.  Just thought it worth one more shot because my words have fallen short previously it seems.  If they fall short again, I'll know my presentation is lacking! 

 

If I change my wording from "knowingly put" to "allowing the individual to choose," does that reflect a more accurate understanding of EO theology? If so, my sentence would read, "If it's fun to knowingly allow a cognizant, self-aware person to exist for eternity in a position of suffering, we don't consider that compassionate" (because remember, we're talking about a fun-loving god). It exposes this god as one who is either incapable or unwilling to prevent a cognizant, self-aware individual from suffering an eternity of pain and torture. If the reason is because of "free will," surely it isn't an impossibility for an omnipotent god to create a reality in which free will is still honored while an eternity of horror is prevented, even for those who don't want to make the choice he wants them to make. 

 

The analogy to the Prodigal Son breaks apart for me in two ways. One is that the father is not omniscient or omnipotent. He is limited in these ways the EO church does not recognize in God. The other is the time frame of eternity. Surely the father would wait forever if he could, not lock the doors at dark and shrug his shoulders and say, "well, he had enough time to figure it out." That locking the door is like the time of death - time's up, you've made your bed, now you will lie in it forever. We don't know what the father in the parable would do if the son never came back, but presumably the door would always be open to the son. This is not the case with God. I think the Mormons have addressed that moral oversight with their theology concerning the different celestial spheres.  I think that reflects an evolution of morality that EO will have to work out within the confines of its existing theology. As the other thread about heaven shows, people tend to get pretty worked up when they're identified as an outsider in this context. It seems mean to us today because we don't share the cultural and moral compass as those who originally developed the dogma of heaven. So either the EO church has to evolve its theology (and no doubt risk be accused of backpedaling), or hang tight (and no doubt risk being accused of being immoral and serving an unsympathetic or malevolent god).

 

 

I don't think your words are falling short, fwiw. I think the line at which you decide to stop asking these questions is different to the line where I stop asking these questions. I think they're logical questions, logical responses to the answers offered. I understand if you haven't thought about them or aren't interested in pursuing them, but please don't think your words are falling short. So far your participation has been valuable to me. I've learned a lot, so thank you.