3,914 reputation
219
bio website orthogeeks.com
location
age 31
visits member for 2 years, 10 months
seen Mar 14 '13 at 15:56

Antiochian Orthodox Christian, Computer Programmer and all around geek.


Oct
3
comment What could persuade a presumably otherwise-rational Satan to turn on God?
Hierarchy is a fact of reality; it is a fundamental and atomic property of existence and it cannot be reduced to anything else. You could say it different ways, i.e, that Satan was the greatest of the angels, the most beautiful, etc, and whether it is by his volition or not is immaterial, God created him knowing what he would be and become, first his greatest servant, and then his chief enemy. But God did not create him for the second.
Oct
3
comment What traditions fully embrace the concept of a “local parish church”?
Indeed, overlapping geographical areas for reasons of race and ethnicity is considered heretical (hilarious for us Orthodox in the USA, amirite.) and called 'phyletism'. You cannot canonically have overlapping geographies for the reason of language or race or culture.
Oct
3
comment What could persuade a presumably otherwise-rational Satan to turn on God?
The oral tradition states that Lucifer was the chief of all of the angels, the most beautiful angel, and the greatest and foremost singer of the angelic choir. Therefore one might accuse the 'accuser' of vanity.
Oct
3
comment From a Fundamentalist viewpoint, what does it mean to “take the Bible literally”?
Good luck on this one! Without a single body of doctrine or creedal statement on the matter, it will be a long debate, methinks.
Oct
3
comment What could persuade a presumably otherwise-rational Satan to turn on God?
If you don't know its impossible, it changes the equation.
Oct
3
comment What could persuade a presumably otherwise-rational Satan to turn on God?
It means to be what Christ is; 'consubstantial', 'coeternal', 'ever existing', 'all powerful', with the Father. To be so is something one either is from all eternity or isn't; Satan, the angels, and all creatures aren't. Pride is, as was pointed out above, the source of this. Satan (Lucifer) was the most beautiful of the angels and the chief singer. Reminds me of some public personas.
Oct
3
comment What could persuade a presumably otherwise-rational Satan to turn on God?
One last point - it is believed that before the fall of Satan, the angels were not fixed in virtue, but existed in an intermittent state not far from our own state of flux. After this choice, to follow Satan or God, their virtue became fixed and their obedience (or disobedience) unchanging.
Oct
3
comment What could persuade a presumably otherwise-rational Satan to turn on God?
The hint is this: 1. Satan was driven out (as Christ says, 'fell like lightning') so he didn't leave heaven on purpose. 2. Satan, like other angels, does not have complete knowledge of everything despite how ancient they are. The fathers say that Satan thought God was merely older, stronger and wiser than everyone else, and did not realize that he belongs to a different order of existence, and thus is impossible to usurp.
Oct
3
comment What Scriptural basis has been used in Christianity to support the idea that a fetus posseses the soul?
Well, but wives were treated as property as were slaves, not that it made them nonalive or nonhuman.
Oct
3
comment What could persuade a presumably otherwise-rational Satan to turn on God?
This is a legitimate question. And there are some patristic speculations, opinions if you will, on this matter.
Oct
3
comment When do catechumens go to confession?
Similar in the Orthodox tradition, though usually this is considered a 'lifetime confession', since it involves everything up to that point, not just since the last confession.
Oct
3
comment Original sin and its consequences
Different, I think.
Oct
3
comment How should a Christian deal with destructive higher criticism of the Bible?
According to my professor of Early Christian studies, it is assumed that it would have been written down by his disciples. So, if this document did exist (which they are fairly certain of) it would have been written down by his disciples, because many of the quotes were spoken in private and thus, only to those within his following at the time (as the Scripture itself indicates numerous times.)
Oct
1
comment What is the origin of a stole?
I also see that there are different kinds of 'stole' - orthodoxwiki.org/Stole <- you're referring to this, right? It's a Roman style orarion, essentially. So the style is Roman aristocratic, but the essential garment is the 'orarion' or 'epitrachelion' - priestly neck garments that are probably older than history.
Oct
1
comment What is the origin of a stole?
In Orthodox tradition, the Stole has particular vesting prayers associated with it, short psalm verses referencing the beard of Aaron. The style may derive from Roman aristocracy, but that doesn't make it 'nonpoor' clothing.
Sep
12
comment Historicity of which Biblical characters is recognized by Archaeology/History?
The Greek Septuagint is significantly different than the Hebrew Masoretic.
Jun
20
comment Did all disciples of Christ's apostles consider priesthood a sacrament?
Given the universality of the priest as a figure in human existence - one may be confused about the nature of Christian priesthood. We have priests ironically (from the Orthodox perspective) but this can only be understood if you understand the liturgy. The laity are by consequence not individually priests - as not all are deacons, prophets, etc. The priest is a priest because he offers the sacrifices, in this case, the 'un' sacrifices. Priesthood is itself universally sacramental, given that this is a constant, to argue against the point borders on absurdity.
Jun
20
comment Did all disciples of Christ's apostles consider priesthood a sacrament?
As a side note (I mentioned below) 'priesthood of all believers' does not necessarily mean that all believers are individually priests. When we use the ending 'hood' or 'head' or 'ship' (Germanic) the use is not sufficient condition to conclude individual, independent possession of that property. Would we say the 'Godhead' implies that the members are individudally Gods? No. Where does this idea of the priesthood of all believers even come from? It is simple - it comes from being members of the body of the High Priest himself. Disappointing perhaps, but logically solid.
Jun
20
comment Did all disciples of Christ's apostles consider priesthood a sacrament?
It's worth noting that the priesthood of all believers doesn't necessarily make believers individually priests - in the same way when we talk about the Godhood (Godhead) we don't mean that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are individually Gods. Instead it has to do with the sacramental nature of Christian life itself, and given that we compose the body of the High Priest himself- Christ - we are certainly part of the priesthood. But our role in it is not the same, so the 'priesthood of all believers' cannot be understood as the Aaronic priesthood, but as membership in a body.
Jun
20
comment Did Jesus wear tefillin?
It could still be considered a criticism of the practice, as for instance he criticized their practice of fasting and praying as well. It may be more proper to say that he is not criticizing the idea of Tefillin, but rather the actual practice. Whether the Pharisees were 'doing it right' and that was exactly what was wrong or if they really were doing Tefillin wrong - that I can't answer.