Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Sanctissima]

As far as we know (and of course there's a lot of theorizing, but the archaeological evidence is at least there in parts) the tribe that eventually became the Israelites were Ugarits (I think I spelled that right). The legend of the Exodus probably came from enslaved Caananites who escaped Egypt (albeit in far smaller numbers) and settled in Ugarit. In regards to Moses, my personal guess is that he was a half-legendary or maybe fully legendary figure who got inserted into the tale at a later dare.

The Ugarits eventually came to dominate the other Caananite tribes, probably through a combination of militaristic and cultural means. Over time, a distinct Israeli cultural and religious identity developed, with El becoming Yahweh, the sole god of an initially polytheistic pantheon.

It's mostly speculation, I know, but it would fit in with a lot of the Biblical narrative regarding early Israelite wars, and why God goes from being referred to as Elohim to El Shaddai to Yahweh and numerous other names in the early Hebrew texts.

I'm sorry but that's incorrect. The Ugarits were tribe operating out of modern day Syria, and had sea trading with multiple Mediterranean powers. They were still existing during times we know the Jews were distinct from Canaanites. They collapsed while the Jews were still in the 1st temple period.

Oh, well I... I guess I'm really off the mark on that count.

Still though, if not from the Caananites, where else did the Israelites and their religion originate from?

[Jamzmania]

I'm sorry but that's incorrect. The Ugarits were tribe operating out of modern day Syria, and had sea trading with multiple Mediterranean powers. They were still existing during times we know the Jews were distinct from Canaanites. They collapsed while the Jews were still in the 1st temple period.

Oh, well I... I guess I'm really off the mark on that count.

Still though, if not from the Caananites, where else did the Israelites and their religion originate from?

There's always the traditional explanation which can be found in the Bible.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I'm sorry but that's incorrect. The Ugarits were tribe operating out of modern day Syria, and had sea trading with multiple Mediterranean powers. They were still existing during times we know the Jews were distinct from Canaanites. They collapsed while the Jews were still in the 1st temple period.

Oh, well I... I guess I'm really off the mark on that count.

Still though, if not from the Caananites, where else did the Israelites and their religion originate from?

It's still highly probable that the Israelites are Canaanites, considering even in these early Hebrew settlements we've uncovered they still had artifacts deifying El, the head of the Canaanite Pantheon. YHWH could be a rendition of EL, could be a disseminated God from a foreign Land, or the Exodus story could be true.

I have no firm stance on the issue, I honestly consider it kind of irrelevant.

[Prosocial]

What do y'all think about the atonement?

Broadly speaking: Roman Catholics have tended to follow the approach that Christ's death was a satisfaction to God's honor as a ruler, which he required before he could forgive human sin. Christ, by dying on the cross, makes the necessary sacrifice to the father as a man, allowing other men to be pardoned. But the Roman Catholic leadership has also said that the approach of the Eastern Orthodox church is another acceptable view that a Christian can have.

In that view, man had become enslaved to sin, death, and the devil; a condition which was in one way opposed to the will of God, but in another way in accordance with God's justice, since men had chosen to sin. By becoming a man and being unjustly subjected to death (in the process delegitimizing death), God reconciled the world to himself.

Conservative protestants take a similar but not precisely identical approach to Roman Catholics, saying that Christ's death was a payment to God's justice rather than to his honor- in other words, Christ's death was the punishment men deserved for their sins rather than the price the father required to demonstrate his rule and his rejection of sin.

Many Christians, at various times, have argued that man had misunderstood the character of God, and believed him to be angry and unwilling to restore his relationship with men. Through the person of Jesus we discover the opposite- that he is forgiving and willing to welcome us back to him. Most theological liberals believe only this theory- many from the more conservative wings of their respective movements believe it in conjunction with at least one other theory.

Another theory I've seen argues that the significance of Christ's death was essentially political- Christ was a martyr killed by evil human systems, but God in resurrecting him demonstrated his rejection of those systems and his commitment to eventually destroy them. Like the moral influence theory, this theory has sometimes been held alone, and sometimes in conjunction with other theories.

A further debate concerns the question of whether the merits of Christ were sufficient to cover the sins of the entire human race, or only the sins of the elect (those who would, in actual fact, be saved.) The first position hasn't always implied universalism, and the second position hasn't always implied Calvinism.

[Venerable Bede]

Oh, well I... I guess I'm really off the mark on that count.

Still though, if not from the Caananites, where else did the Israelites and their religion originate from?

It's still highly probable that the Israelites are Canaanites, considering even in these early Hebrew settlements we've uncovered they still had artifacts deifying El, the head of the Canaanite Pantheon. YHWH could be a rendition of EL, could be a disseminated God from a foreign Land, or the Exodus story could be true.

I have no firm stance on the issue, I honestly consider it kind of irrelevant.

"El" just means "god" in that cluster of Semitic dialects ("Allah" comes from it). YHWH is a particular El.

[Constantinopolis]

You can't really test anything concerning the beginning of the universe or the beginning of life.

Precisely. I'm going to have to come down strongly on Jamzmania's side here.

The fact is, we do not have - and most likely never will have - any evidence of any kind about how the first living cells came into existence. They did not leave behind bones for us to look at (being bacteria and all). Some physical evidence about early lifeforms on the primordial Earth does exist, but is extremely rare, and it doesn't tell us anything about how they came into being.

"But Const," I hear you say, "we have some pretty good theoretical models trying to show how life can arise from non-living matter, and sure, they have some gaps and problems right now, but you're not going to pull the God of the gaps principle on me, are you? Sooner or later we will fix those gaps and have a perfectly good theory of abiogenesis!"

Indeed, perhaps we will. But here's the problem: "could have" does not equal "did". Showing that a thing could have happened is not the same as showing that it did happen.

The fact is, all of the current scientific efforts around the question of the origin of life are guilty of confusing plausibility with evidence. They act as if showing that life could have arisen a certain way is as good as showing that it did arise that way. As if coming up with a plausible story about what might have happened in the past is the same as discovering what did happen.

But it's not the same. Even if you could prove, beyond any doubt, that the first living creatures could have come into existence by a certain series of events, that is not proof that they did come into existence that way.

This is why we do not have - and most likely never will have - any evidence of any kind about how the first living cells came into existence. What we do have, and will continue to have, is plausible speculation.

Of course God is not a testable hypothesis, but neither are any of the others, unless you can travel back in time to see what happened.

There is evidence for evolution, in the form of fossils. But when it comes to the origin of life? Not so much.

I forget the name of the experiment in question, but abiogenesis is a tried and true phenomenon.

No, it isn't. No guy in a lab ever made entirely new lifeforms from scratch - do you have any idea of the implications of such a thing if we could actually do it?

If we actually had the technology to create new lifeforms that have not existed before (!!!), either through abiogenesis or through any other process, do you realize what a massive revolution in science and technology that would entail? At the present time, we can't even make a new species by manipulating the DNA of existing species. Let alone creating a new species from non-living matter.

The experiments you are thinking about showed that amino acids (one of the building blocks of DNA) can arise spontaneously from simpler compounds under certain conditions. In other words, they replicated one small step in the very long chain of events that needs to happen in order for life to arise. No one has even come anywhere close to replicating the entire chain of events.

Comets get around, water mixes with carbon and other elements, and over the course of time biological entities form.

Ok, so let's say that could have happened. But do you have any evidence that it did in fact happen?

No. You don't.

Because one can make logical conclusions that don't involve a Caananite god of war having done literally everything.

Given that we have no evidence one way or another about what actually happened, why do you prefer one type of plausible explanation (abiogenesis) to another type of equally-plausible explanation (God)?

Because you have an implicit philosophical bias towards naturalistic explanations, which you probably don't even recognize as a philosophical bias or philosophical stance. But that is what it is. You believe that, all other things being equal, with no evidence either way, the atheist explanation is inherently superior to the theist one. The most plausible naturalistic explanation is assumed true until proven false. Explanations involving supernatural phenomena are assumed false until... actually they're just assumed false, always. It's a philosophical stance that you are taking.

[Nordengrund]

When I look up various Christians throughout history, Wikipedia sometimes says that they are venerated in the RCC, EOC, the Anglican Church and the Lutheran Church.

How does Anglican and Lutheran veneration differ from the Catholic and Orthodox veneration?

[Luminesa]

What do y'all think about the atonement?

Broadly speaking: Roman Catholics have tended to follow the approach that Christ's death was a satisfaction to God's honor as a ruler, which he required before he could forgive human sin. Christ, by dying on the cross, makes the necessary sacrifice to the father as a man, allowing other men to be pardoned. But the Roman Catholic leadership has also said that the approach of the Eastern Orthodox church is another acceptable view that a Christian can have.

In that view, man had become enslaved to sin, death, and the devil; a condition which was in one way opposed to the will of God, but in another way in accordance with God's justice, since men had chosen to sin. By becoming a man and being unjustly subjected to death (in the process delegitimizing death), God reconciled the world to himself.

Conservative protestants take a similar but not precisely identical approach to Roman Catholics, saying that Christ's death was a payment to God's justice rather than to his honor- in other words, Christ's death was the punishment men deserved for their sins rather than the price the father required to demonstrate his rule and his rejection of sin.

Many Christians, at various times, have argued that man had misunderstood the character of God, and believed him to be angry and unwilling to restore his relationship with men. Through the person of Jesus we discover the opposite- that he is forgiving and willing to welcome us back to him. Most theological liberals believe only this theory- many from the more conservative wings of their respective movements believe it in conjunction with at least one other theory.

Another theory I've seen argues that the significance of Christ's death was essentially political- Christ was a martyr killed by evil human systems, but God in resurrecting him demonstrated his rejection of those systems and his commitment to eventually destroy them. Like the moral influence theory, this theory has sometimes been held alone, and sometimes in conjunction with other theories.

A further debate concerns the question of whether the merits of Christ were sufficient to cover the sins of the entire human race, or only the sins of the elect (those who would, in actual fact, be saved.) The first position hasn't always implied universalism, and the second position hasn't always implied Calvinism.

Christ carried the sins of all of humanity when He died on that cross. Whether we choose to repay Him (imperfectly, obviously), by living a life in cooperation with the grace He presents us is up to us.

[Prosocial]

What do y'all think about the atonement?

Broadly speaking: Roman Catholics have tended to follow the approach that Christ's death was a satisfaction to God's honor as a ruler, which he required before he could forgive human sin. Christ, by dying on the cross, makes the necessary sacrifice to the father as a man, allowing other men to be pardoned. But the Roman Catholic leadership has also said that the approach of the Eastern Orthodox church is another acceptable view that a Christian can have.

In that view, man had become enslaved to sin, death, and the devil; a condition which was in one way opposed to the will of God, but in another way in accordance with God's justice, since men had chosen to sin. By becoming a man and being unjustly subjected to death (in the process delegitimizing death), God reconciled the world to himself.

Conservative protestants take a similar but not precisely identical approach to Roman Catholics, saying that Christ's death was a payment to God's justice rather than to his honor- in other words, Christ's death was the punishment men deserved for their sins rather than the price the father required to demonstrate his rule and his rejection of sin.

Many Christians, at various times, have argued that man had misunderstood the character of God, and believed him to be angry and unwilling to restore his relationship with men. Through the person of Jesus we discover the opposite- that he is forgiving and willing to welcome us back to him. Most theological liberals believe only this theory- many from the more conservative wings of their respective movements believe it in conjunction with at least one other theory.

Another theory I've seen argues that the significance of Christ's death was essentially political- Christ was a martyr killed by evil human systems, but God in resurrecting him demonstrated his rejection of those systems and his commitment to eventually destroy them. Like the moral influence theory, this theory has sometimes been held alone, and sometimes in conjunction with other theories.

A further debate concerns the question of whether the merits of Christ were sufficient to cover the sins of the entire human race, or only the sins of the elect (those who would, in actual fact, be saved.) The first position hasn't always implied universalism, and the second position hasn't always implied Calvinism.

Christ carried the sins of all of humanity when He died on that cross. Whether we choose to repay Him (imperfectly, obviously), by living a life in cooperation with the grace He presents us is up to us.

I agree with that.

[Venerable Bede]

When I look up various Christians throughout history, Wikipedia sometimes says that they are venerated in the RCC, EOC, the Anglican Church and the Lutheran Church.

How does Anglican and Lutheran veneration differ from the Catholic and Orthodox veneration?

Orthodox and Catholics kiss images of the saints, sing hymns in praise of them in church, and ask for their intercessions.

[Venerable Bede]

What do y'all think about the atonement?

Broadly speaking: Roman Catholics have tended to follow the approach that Christ's death was a satisfaction to God's honor as a ruler, which he required before he could forgive human sin. Christ, by dying on the cross, makes the necessary sacrifice to the father as a man, allowing other men to be pardoned. But the Roman Catholic leadership has also said that the approach of the Eastern Orthodox church is another acceptable view that a Christian can have.

In that view, man had become enslaved to sin, death, and the devil; a condition which was in one way opposed to the will of God, but in another way in accordance with God's justice, since men had chosen to sin. By becoming a man and being unjustly subjected to death (in the process delegitimizing death), God reconciled the world to himself.

Conservative protestants take a similar but not precisely identical approach to Roman Catholics, saying that Christ's death was a payment to God's justice rather than to his honor- in other words, Christ's death was the punishment men deserved for their sins rather than the price the father required to demonstrate his rule and his rejection of sin.

Many Christians, at various times, have argued that man had misunderstood the character of God, and believed him to be angry and unwilling to restore his relationship with men. Through the person of Jesus we discover the opposite- that he is forgiving and willing to welcome us back to him. Most theological liberals believe only this theory- many from the more conservative wings of their respective movements believe it in conjunction with at least one other theory.

Another theory I've seen argues that the significance of Christ's death was essentially political- Christ was a martyr killed by evil human systems, but God in resurrecting him demonstrated his rejection of those systems and his commitment to eventually destroy them. Like the moral influence theory, this theory has sometimes been held alone, and sometimes in conjunction with other theories.

A further debate concerns the question of whether the merits of Christ were sufficient to cover the sins of the entire human race, or only the sins of the elect (those who would, in actual fact, be saved.) The first position hasn't always implied universalism, and the second position hasn't always implied Calvinism.

I subscribe to the Orthodox understanding, which rejects the idea that Christ was a penal substitute. That's why we don't focus on his suffering, his death was about creating the paradox entailing the Resurrection, not about suffering as a penal substitute.

[Prosocial]

What do y'all think about the atonement?

Broadly speaking: Roman Catholics have tended to follow the approach that Christ's death was a satisfaction to God's honor as a ruler, which he required before he could forgive human sin. Christ, by dying on the cross, makes the necessary sacrifice to the father as a man, allowing other men to be pardoned. But the Roman Catholic leadership has also said that the approach of the Eastern Orthodox church is another acceptable view that a Christian can have.

In that view, man had become enslaved to sin, death, and the devil; a condition which was in one way opposed to the will of God, but in another way in accordance with God's justice, since men had chosen to sin. By becoming a man and being unjustly subjected to death (in the process delegitimizing death), God reconciled the world to himself.

Conservative protestants take a similar but not precisely identical approach to Roman Catholics, saying that Christ's death was a payment to God's justice rather than to his honor- in other words, Christ's death was the punishment men deserved for their sins rather than the price the father required to demonstrate his rule and his rejection of sin.

Many Christians, at various times, have argued that man had misunderstood the character of God, and believed him to be angry and unwilling to restore his relationship with men. Through the person of Jesus we discover the opposite- that he is forgiving and willing to welcome us back to him. Most theological liberals believe only this theory- many from the more conservative wings of their respective movements believe it in conjunction with at least one other theory.

Another theory I've seen argues that the significance of Christ's death was essentially political- Christ was a martyr killed by evil human systems, but God in resurrecting him demonstrated his rejection of those systems and his commitment to eventually destroy them. Like the moral influence theory, this theory has sometimes been held alone, and sometimes in conjunction with other theories.

A further debate concerns the question of whether the merits of Christ were sufficient to cover the sins of the entire human race, or only the sins of the elect (those who would, in actual fact, be saved.) The first position hasn't always implied universalism, and the second position hasn't always implied Calvinism.

I subscribe to the Orthodox understanding, which rejects the idea that Christ was a penal substitute. That's why we don't focus on his suffering, his death was about creating the paradox entailing the Resurrection, not about suffering as a penal substitute.

Cool! I live in the United States and have never so much as seen the inside of an Orthodox church, but I'm working on trying to bring something like the orthodox understanding of the atonement to my own cultural context. I was particularly struck by the way that the orthodox understanding holds incarnation and atonement in the closest possible relation, and I guess that inspired me to keep going deeper. I'd always felt that the penal substitutionary theory as presented didn't really seem to line up with the rest of what I knew about the character of God, but at the same time the language about Jesus taking our place on the cross so that we could take his place in spiritual life, participation in the kingdom of God, and restored relationship with the father expressed to me more forcefully than anything else I'd seen the essential nature of the gospel.

The solution I've worked out so far is to bring the resurrection back into the picture, since it had sort of fallen out of it, in favor of an exclusive emphasis on Christ's death. If God is incarnate into our exact position: human, mortal, and enslaved to the evil forces of sin, and yet remains himself, untainted and infinite, then he's broken the power of sin and death simply by being under their power- so neither he nor anyone else needs to be slaves to them anymore. So in that view, it makes sense to talk about Christ as the first fruits of the resurrection- he was only resurrected first, but the point is that everyone else will be resurrected too. Or to put it the other way around- everyone else can be set free from death, but the point is that even Christ himself didn't remain a slave to it. By taking death up into himself, he conquered death and set free those who were in captivity to it.

In the process he's taken the initiative in bridging the gap between himself and us while we were still sinners. Because our subjection to sin and death was, in my assessment, a natural conclusion of God's own decree that we would have free will. He himself hadn't chosen the way of death, but he allowed that he would be found within our world of sin, experiencing everything that entails, so that we could be reunified with him. By introducing grace, he set aside his legitimate rejection of sin because of his unconditional love for us.

The end of that line of analysis might see the incarnation, the passion, and the resurrection as between them constituting God's act on himself to create for us a path of grace that he himself never needed.

Can you tell me more about the paradox of the resurrection?

[Venerable Bede]

I subscribe to the Orthodox understanding, which rejects the idea that Christ was a penal substitute. That's why we don't focus on his suffering, his death was about creating the paradox entailing the Resurrection, not about suffering as a penal substitute.

Cool! I live in the United States and have never so much as seen the inside of an Orthodox church, but I'm working on trying to bring something like the orthodox understanding of the atonement to my own cultural context. I was particularly struck by the way that the orthodox understanding holds incarnation and atonement in the closest possible relation, and I guess that inspired me to keep going deeper. I'd always felt that the penal substitutionary theory as presented didn't really seem to line up with the rest of what I knew about the character of God, but at the same time the language about Jesus taking our place on the cross so that we could take his place in spiritual life, participation in the kingdom of God, and restored relationship with the father expressed to me more forcefully than anything else I'd seen the essential nature of the gospel.

The solution I've worked out so far is to bring the resurrection back into the picture, since it had sort of fallen out of it, in favor of an exclusive emphasis on Christ's death. If God is incarnate into our exact position: human, mortal, and enslaved to the evil forces of sin, and yet remains himself, untainted and infinite, then he's broken the power of sin and death simply by being under their power- so neither he nor anyone else needs to be slaves to them anymore. So in that view, it makes sense to talk about Christ as the first fruits of the resurrection- he was only resurrected first, but the point is that everyone else will be resurrected too. By taking death up into himself, he conquered death and set free those who were in captivity to it.

In the process he's taken the initiative in bridging the gap between himself and us while we were still sinners. Because our subjection to sin and death was, in my assessment, a natural conclusion of God's own act in giving us free will. He himself hadn't chosen the way of death, but he allowed that he would be found within our world of sin, experiencing everything that entails, so that we could be reunified with him. By introducing grace, he set aside his legitimate rejection of sin because of his unconditional love for us.

The end of that line of analysis might see the incarnation, the passion, and the resurrection as between them constituting God's act on himself to create for us a path of grace that he himself never needed.

Can you tell me more about the paradox of the resurrection?

Man is innately mortal (pre-fall man was immortal due to grace, not nature), God is innately immortal. Christ being man is subject to death, but being God is not subject to death; Christ's death entails a paradox that is only resolved by his Resurrection. Christ found a way out of man's mortality, by being both God and man. We can partake of this paradox by Holy Communion with Christ's Body and Blood; when our bodies share his body, we by extension share in his Resurrection.

I also live in the United States, and I do suggest you actually go to an Orthodox church sometime if you can. You aren't really going to grasp our theology and mindset otherwise, although you may grasp a basic idea of it.

[Prosocial]

Cool! I live in the United States and have never so much as seen the inside of an Orthodox church, but I'm working on trying to bring something like the orthodox understanding of the atonement to my own cultural context. I was particularly struck by the way that the orthodox understanding holds incarnation and atonement in the closest possible relation, and I guess that inspired me to keep going deeper. I'd always felt that the penal substitutionary theory as presented didn't really seem to line up with the rest of what I knew about the character of God, but at the same time the language about Jesus taking our place on the cross so that we could take his place in spiritual life, participation in the kingdom of God, and restored relationship with the father expressed to me more forcefully than anything else I'd seen the essential nature of the gospel.

The solution I've worked out so far is to bring the resurrection back into the picture, since it had sort of fallen out of it, in favor of an exclusive emphasis on Christ's death. If God is incarnate into our exact position: human, mortal, and enslaved to the evil forces of sin, and yet remains himself, untainted and infinite, then he's broken the power of sin and death simply by being under their power- so neither he nor anyone else needs to be slaves to them anymore. So in that view, it makes sense to talk about Christ as the first fruits of the resurrection- he was only resurrected first, but the point is that everyone else will be resurrected too. By taking death up into himself, he conquered death and set free those who were in captivity to it.

In the process he's taken the initiative in bridging the gap between himself and us while we were still sinners. Because our subjection to sin and death was, in my assessment, a natural conclusion of God's own act in giving us free will. He himself hadn't chosen the way of death, but he allowed that he would be found within our world of sin, experiencing everything that entails, so that we could be reunified with him. By introducing grace, he set aside his legitimate rejection of sin because of his unconditional love for us.

The end of that line of analysis might see the incarnation, the passion, and the resurrection as between them constituting God's act on himself to create for us a path of grace that he himself never needed.

Can you tell me more about the paradox of the resurrection?

Man is innately mortal (pre-fall man was immortal due to grace, not nature), God is innately immortal. Christ being man is subject to death, but being God is not subject to death; Christ's death entails a paradox that is only resolved by his Resurrection. Christ found a way out of man's mortality, by being both God and man. We can partake of this paradox by Holy Communion with Christ's Body and Blood; when our bodies share his body, we by extension share in his Resurrection.

I also live in the United States, and I do suggest you actually go to an Orthodox church sometime if you can. You aren't really going to grasp our theology and mindset otherwise, although you may grasp a basic idea of it.

Yeah, I suspected that, cultures are a living thing and their writings only tell so much about them. I'll have to find one to visit sometime if I can. Thanks for your insight.

[Venerable Bede]

Man is innately mortal (pre-fall man was immortal due to grace, not nature), God is innately immortal. Christ being man is subject to death, but being God is not subject to death; Christ's death entails a paradox that is only resolved by his Resurrection. Christ found a way out of man's mortality, by being both God and man. We can partake of this paradox by Holy Communion with Christ's Body and Blood; when our bodies share his body, we by extension share in his Resurrection.

I also live in the United States, and I do suggest you actually go to an Orthodox church sometime if you can. You aren't really going to grasp our theology and mindset otherwise, although you may grasp a basic idea of it.

Yeah, I suspected that, cultures are a living thing and their writings only tell so much about them. I'll have to find one to visit sometime if I can. Thanks for your insight.

Orthodoxy is not really a culture, it's more a lifestyle. It just tends to be accompanied by foreign cultures because it is more common over there, but this is purely incidental. I'd say English-speaking converts in America often understand it better than those raised in it.

[Prosocial]

Yeah, I suspected that, cultures are a living thing and their writings only tell so much about them. I'll have to find one to visit sometime if I can. Thanks for your insight.

Orthodoxy is not really a culture, it's more a lifestyle. It just tends to be accompanied by foreign cultures because it is more common over there, but this is purely incidental. I'd say English-speaking converts in America often understand it better than those raised in it.

Yeah, I tend to find that converts to things often have a personal stake in them that born and bred members don't always have. I was a convert to Christianity from the more extreme side of liberal theology (where they don't claim to believe in God anymore) and in the ecumenical Christian group I was part of after that, I always felt like you could very much tell who was a convert and who was raised Christian. The converts ranged from "still in a lot of screwed up stuff" to "wildly dedicated because this is their entire life" and the people who were raised Christian ranged from "has never questioned this and doesn't care much about it" to "so pure you feel like you shouldn't touch them, because you wouldn't touch the mona lisa."

[Venerable Bede]

Orthodoxy is not really a culture, it's more a lifestyle. It just tends to be accompanied by foreign cultures because it is more common over there, but this is purely incidental. I'd say English-speaking converts in America often understand it better than those raised in it.

Yeah, I tend to find that converts to things often have a personal stake in them that born and bred members don't always have. I was a convert to Christianity from the more extreme side of liberal theology (where they don't claim to believe in God anymore) and in the ecumenical Christian group I was part of after that, I always felt like you could very much tell who was a convert and who was raised Christian. The converts ranged from "still in a lot of screwed up stuff" to "wildly dedicated because this is their entire life" and the people who were raised Christian ranged from "has never questioned this and doesn't care much about it" to "so pure you feel like you shouldn't touch them, because you wouldn't touch the mona lisa."

And you have to understand Orthodoxy from that perspective, not My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Orthodoxy is about carrying on the ancient and Apostolic traditions, mindset and theology; it's accompanied by Greek and Russian culture, etc. often because those countries identify with it heavily, but it's similar to the relationship between Catholicism and Latino culture: the latter is heavily bonded to the former, but the former is not ultimately about ethnic culture at all. Orthodox hymns are nothing like Greek or Russian ethnic music, for instance.

[Prosocial]

Yeah, I tend to find that converts to things often have a personal stake in them that born and bred members don't always have. I was a convert to Christianity from the more extreme side of liberal theology (where they don't claim to believe in God anymore) and in the ecumenical Christian group I was part of after that, I always felt like you could very much tell who was a convert and who was raised Christian. The converts ranged from "still in a lot of screwed up stuff" to "wildly dedicated because this is their entire life" and the people who were raised Christian ranged from "has never questioned this and doesn't care much about it" to "so pure you feel like you shouldn't touch them, because you wouldn't touch the mona lisa."

And you have to understand Orthodoxy from that perspective, not My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Orthodoxy is about carrying on the ancient and Apostolic traditions, mindset and theology; it's accompanied by Greek and Russian culture, etc. often because those countries identify with it heavily, but it's similar to the relationship between Catholicism and Latino culture: the latter is heavily bonded to the former, but the former is not ultimately about ethnic culture at all. Orthodox hymns are nothing like Greek or Russian ethnic music, for instance.

Of course, I understand that that's what you're about and appreciate it. And that's precisely why I care about translating things from one culture to another. Human action takes place in the context of many different cultures, and that includes theological action, hence why it's possible for the line between one religious movement and another to fall along ethnic boundaries. But what we're trying to get at via theology is something that surpasses any one culture in favor of the eternal. So it has to be possible to take it out of one culture and put it into another without losing its most essential properties.

[Venerable Bede]

And you have to understand Orthodoxy from that perspective, not My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Orthodoxy is about carrying on the ancient and Apostolic traditions, mindset and theology; it's accompanied by Greek and Russian culture, etc. often because those countries identify with it heavily, but it's similar to the relationship between Catholicism and Latino culture: the latter is heavily bonded to the former, but the former is not ultimately about ethnic culture at all. Orthodox hymns are nothing like Greek or Russian ethnic music, for instance.

Of course, I understand that that's what you're about and appreciate it. And that's precisely why I care about translating things from one culture to another. Human action takes place in the context of many different cultures, and that includes theological action, hence why it's possible for the line between one religious movement and another to fall along ethnic boundaries. But what we're trying to get at via theology is something that surpasses any one culture in favor of the eternal. So it has to be possible to take it out of one culture and put it into another without losing its most essential properties.

Orthodoxy already has a Western Rite if that's what you mean, although I don't really see it as necessary.

[Prosocial]

Of course, I understand that that's what you're about and appreciate it. And that's precisely why I care about translating things from one culture to another. Human action takes place in the context of many different cultures, and that includes theological action, hence why it's possible for the line between one religious movement and another to fall along ethnic boundaries. But what we're trying to get at via theology is something that surpasses any one culture in favor of the eternal. So it has to be possible to take it out of one culture and put it into another without losing its most essential properties.

Orthodoxy already has a Western Rite if that's what you mean, although I don't really see it as necessary.

Oh, I don't know that I really meant anything in particular, that's just how I feel about religion and culture. Is the Western Rite like a version of Eastern Orthodoxy with Roman Catholic influences?

[Conscentia]

I forget the name of the experiment in question, but abiogenesis is a tried and true phenomenon.

No, it isn't. No guy in a lab ever made entirely new lifeforms from scratch - do you have any idea of the implications of such a thing if we could actually do it?

If we actually had the technology to create new lifeforms that have not existed before (!!!), either through abiogenesis or through any other process, do you realize what a massive revolution in science and technology that would entail? At the present time, we can't even make a new species by manipulating the DNA of existing species. Let alone creating a new species from non-living matter.

The experiments you are thinking about showed that amino acids (one of the building blocks of DNA) can arise spontaneously from simpler compounds under certain conditions. In other words, they replicated one small step in the very long chain of events that needs to happen in order for life to arise. No one has even come anywhere close to replicating the entire chain of events.

You are correct that abiogenesis has not yet ever been demonstrated or documented. However, I don't think "we can't even make a new species by manipulating the DNA of existing species" is exactly accurate. Researchers have been able to create living cells with entirely synthetic genomes¹, and have created a living organism with synthetic genome of fewer than 500 genes². Mycoplasma laboratorium, although not entirely synthetic, is not a natural species.

1. http://www.livescience.com/6486-live-organism-synthetic-genome-created.html
2. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/synthetic-microbe-lives-less-500-genes

[Venerable Bede]

Orthodoxy already has a Western Rite if that's what you mean, although I don't really see it as necessary.

Oh, I don't know that I really meant anything in particular, that's just how I feel about religion and culture. Is the Western Rite like a version of Eastern Orthodoxy with Roman Catholic influences?

It's meant to reflect the rites in the West prior to the schism.

[Prosocial]

Oh, I don't know that I really meant anything in particular, that's just how I feel about religion and culture. Is the Western Rite like a version of Eastern Orthodoxy with Roman Catholic influences?

It's meant to reflect the rites in the West prior to the schism.

Oh, interesting.

So going back to the atonement: I found two aspects of what you said especially interesting.

First of all, that death is natural to man independent of the grace of God- so man doesn't have within himself the means even to continue being himself indefinitely. In becoming a man, God therefore becomes almost of himself, nothing, even though he is, of himself, everything. That reminds me of the move that I feel like is prior to everything else God does: even though he's supremely valuable, he leaves himself behind and places value instead on things that have no inherent worth. My reading of Athanasius was that we die because God is the source of our being, and when we forsake him we essentially begin the process of turning back to dust. That's definitely compatible with the idea that we are, in and of ourselves, utterly dependent on God's grace for our continued existence.

Secondly, that a union with the human body of Christ, which is resurrected, is entailed in the resurrection of regeneration. In that way, the fact that the church is the body of Christ on earth (between the ascension and the second coming) becomes especially relevant. I think it emphasizes not just what we're not (isolated from God any more) but what we are (the body in which his spirit indwells.)

[Diopolis]

I'm sorry but that's incorrect. The Ugarits were tribe operating out of modern day Syria, and had sea trading with multiple Mediterranean powers. They were still existing during times we know the Jews were distinct from Canaanites. They collapsed while the Jews were still in the 1st temple period.

Oh, well I... I guess I'm really off the mark on that count.

Still though, if not from the Caananites, where else did the Israelites and their religion originate from?

First off, the way hebrew records numbers would make accountants tear their hair out, because it's very ambiguous. But, bear in mind that the hebrew bible records a people who leave egypt to conquer, enslave, and forcibly convert the people living in southern canaan. Note that the actual numbers of them are not terribly well recorded because ancient hebrew is not a very good language at specific numbers.
So, in essence, a tribe leaving egypt is recorded conquering a new region and presumably forming their elite. This tribe is distinguished by monotheism and certain egyptian cultural practices taken to an extreme- the ancient egyptians had their own circumcision and food taboo practices- and left egypt after a period of enslavement that followed a time of religious turmoil in egypt over... monotheism.
Under this theory, the hebrews got their religion from Akhenaten, then were enslaved after his dynasty was overthrown. They were led out of country by a man named Moses, to a land they claim some sort of connection to, conquered the locals, and imposed their culture.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

It's still highly probable that the Israelites are Canaanites, considering even in these early Hebrew settlements we've uncovered they still had artifacts deifying El, the head of the Canaanite Pantheon. YHWH could be a rendition of EL, could be a disseminated God from a foreign Land, or the Exodus story could be true.

I have no firm stance on the issue, I honestly consider it kind of irrelevant.

"El" just means "god" in that cluster of Semitic dialects ("Allah" comes from it). YHWH is a particular El.

Yes...now. Elohim comes from it too. But in the Canaanite pantheon El is a character. He's head of the Pantheon, king of the Gods.