www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West "God in a Box"

He makes so many thoughtful posts.

-ray

Ray, I agree with you in one respect: Richard's expositions here are always profound and and thought provoking, though I don't lawys agree with them.

Dave, pace the views of ray, you did come across as self-righteous, but you are not alone! When I put on my Orthodox Christian hat, not only do i become self-righteous but also rather triumphalist! In my judgment, this is a failing that goes back to the beginning of the faith (I'm dating the beginning to around Nicaea when Constantine most unwisely imposed unity on all the various waring sects that made up the faith) and infects all the relationships between all sects that make up Christianity and the relationships Christianity has with non Christian faiths, especially Islam. When two faiths such as Christianity and Islam, with the same outlook on their own faiths and the same mindset on faiths other than their own, we have such events as the Crusades and more recent events. Perhaps, it is time to abandon this mindset. In the best of all worlds, both Islam and Christianity should abandon it. I'd be happy to see the Christian side do it first. Just my 2 cents.

That's gotta hurt! I have to say, though, that I listen to a lot of Protestant radio and, although there certainly are exceptions, I am impressed by how many preach the full Chalcedonian christology (some will even use that term!) and emphasize the importance of the Trinity.

Well, I certainly would exclude any hate groups (sorry, that was not what Our Lord meant by "anyone who does not hate his father and mother, etc."). On the other hand, while rejecting the Mormons as a group, I believe there are a significant number of them whose belief in Christ is very close to that of the Church, while they simply fail to see that this is not what their religion teaches.

True, but then again, what could be more Christ-like than to be judged for the sins of others and to suffer the penalty for them?

I have to agree (although there have been exceptions here as well ).


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Isn't "Richard" a deacon and shouldn't he be adressed or mentioned as Father Deacon Richard or at least Deacon Richard???

John, do you any comments on the issue on the topic being discussed? I would like to hear them.

Deacon Richard,


There's a huge difference between willingly sacrificing yourself for others and being sacrificed by others. The former is Christ-like; the latter is simply unjust.

Dave

Zonaras, Thank you for inviting me to this site.

At this time, i am Joyful to be reading the fine posts of those i consider Christians on The Way.

i've been lurking for sometime now and pray The Lord gives me more voice till then all i have to say is;

Christ is born!! Glorify Him!!

humbly, gregory

Who can argue with your comments, gregory?

Dave,

Try looking at it this way: the fact of Our Lord's willingly sacrificing Himself for others in no way precludes the fact that He was--most unjustly--sacrificed by others and judged as an evil-doer.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Deacon Richard,

Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the first. He could have avoided this sacrifice, but then we wouldn't be saved. He truly did sacrifice Himself.

I, on the other hand, being a weak mortal, cannot help but distinguish between just and unjust fates; I would take a bullet to save my family and in death would feel I did the right thing, but would feel I died unjustly were I to be killed because someone accused me of a crime my neighbor committed.

Dave

Just something to think about ...


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Deacon Richard,

We're in complete agreement that Christ sacrificed himself for us!


I think Paul's attempt to show by comparison how great God is, needlessy put down humanity in this passage. We all know MANY people who willingly place themselves in harm's way to save the lives and even the property of others . . . but this in no way compares to the incredible willing self-sacrifice of Christ for the entire world!

My point in this conversation, however, wasn't about the Lord, rather it was that it isn't right to hold individuals responsible for sins committed by others . . . sin isn't a collective thing, it's an individual thing.

While reading another thread today I pulled out my copy of the Catholic Catechism, and coincidentally found this:


The Church recognizes the distinction I was trying to make, because it gives the conditions when sin IS collective.

Anyway, on a more personal note, another reason I have an issue with the generic term "Christian" is based on my experiences with Evangelicals in the military: "Oh, you're Catholic? I'm Christian!" Too many people I know use it as if it excludes Mother Church!

Dave

Dave, you say;

"The Church recognizes the distinction I was trying to make, because it gives the conditions when sin IS collective."

"The Church" as in the Kellogg's Cereal Church is what you are saying and not "The Church" that another brother puts God in the box, right?

And then you make the box even more distinguished by saying;
"Anyway, on a more personal note, another reason I have an issue with the generic term "Christian" is based on my experiences with Evangelicals in the military: "Oh, you're Catholic? I'm Christian!" Too many people I know use it as if it excludes Mother Church!"

Maybe you could have said Christian; presenting your life as an example... innocent and smart...
Of course, we could use/put the denominational tag with Christian so the term is not generic but brand/box loyal.

The term catholic and evangelical were certainly originally both part of the Orthodox Church...

"Too many people I know use it as if it excludes Mother Church!"
i've heard that before and wonder when the preparing Bride was united with the Returned Christ as promised??

Are you saying "Mother Church" gave birth to the other "Church boxes" ?

My life lays before thee...

humbly, gregory

I was coming back to severely cut back on my post, but since it's already been responded to, I'll leave it.

Since I was quoting the Catholic Catechism, I figured it wouldn't be taken to include other brands of Christianity.


My formative years were spent with friends and family of several different Christian faiths; Roman Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, and various forms of Protestantism. Nobody in those days (at least where I lived) had any great issues with the other faiths; we were all Christians, just different. When new folks showed up, we'd ask "what they were," I was Byzantine Catholic, another was Roman Catholic, some were Presbyterians, etc. All of us accepted each other as Christian. Thus, I have always identified myself as a Byzantine Catholic when asked.

It is only in the last decade or so that I've noticed the exclusionary use that I noted . . . and I don't like it. Saying "Oh, I'm a Christian," in response to "I'm Catholic"," is just downright rude.

Given my upbringing and my more recent experiences, I will continue to NOT use the generic, which, by the way, doesn't tell me anything about you anyway, because it glosses over the richness of diversity so evident in Christendom.

Dave

I am going to jump in here. I had an agenda when I raised the God in the box issue in the first place. I was trying to make the point, which many chose to apparently ignore, that we CHristians need to develop a stronger sense of humility and realize that we are just one religion among many on this planet. I can and have been as triumphalist (most members of the EOC and the RCC are any way) as most of my brethren and it is time we all put the triumphalism aside. If we do, we might get along better with other people on the planet who disagree with us in res religiosae! If so, perhaps the world would be a more peaceful place.