Souls, immortality and eternity

[A Desert Aspirant]

Mammal mothers nurture their young. They express emotions. They love. They form attachments. They respond to each other and to humans. They think. Pets become part of the family. Do they have souls? I think so. Perhaps not the same degree as humans, but a definite soul. What does the doctrine say?

[A Desert Aspirant]

"Man alone is capable of communion with God. For to man alone among the living creatures does God speak - at night through dreams, by day through the intellect." St. Anthony the Great. Does this imply animals have no soul, or just that animals aren't cognizant of God?

[Lawrence]

Animals have a soul, but they have not received the Spirit through the breathe of God. For this reason they have no intellect. They participate completely with God and are sinless because they have no free will.

Now that brings an interesting contemplation of the Lord's casting of the demons into the swine.

LD

[Thomas Davidson]

The trouble is 'soul' in itself is a flexible and somewhat indeterminate term.

This from the Hebrew tradition:

Nefesh:
The creaturely or animic soul (psyche and anima in Greek and Latin). It means 'vitality' in the sense of life enjoyed by every living creature "for the life of every creature is the blood of it" (Lev 17:14).

The soul at this level is neither incorruptible, "that through these (promises of Christ) you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4) and "for whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved" (2:19), nor immortal: "When you chastise man because of his iniquity, you condemn his soul to dissolution" (Psalms 39:12) or "Let my soul die the death of the righteous" (Num 23:10).

Ruach:
The mental or psychic soul (pneuma and spiritus) endowed with the faculties of reason and intellect. Ruach means 'breath' and in this sense the soul is the breath of God which animates Adam and all humanity. Thus when reason deserts man, he becomes prey to his animic passions and apetites.

Neshamah:
The sanctified soul (pneuma or pnoe and spiritus, spiraculum or habitus) as spoken of by Christ: "Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).

There are other levels, but then all becomes a matter of degree.

Tom

[Rebecca]

Icons of the Nativity often show animals and plants, not in their realistic perspective, but in the perspective of the icon.

Then there's the psalm "Let everything that has breath praise the Lord"

[Herman Blaydoe]

"In comparing the soul of man with that of animals, St. Gregory [Palamas] says that animals possess a soul not as essence, but as an energy. 'The soul of each of the irrational animals is the life for the body it animates, and so animals possess life not essentially, but as an energy, since this life is dependent on something else and is not self-subsistent.' Therefore since the soul of animals has only energy, it dies with the body. By contrast, the soul of man has not only energy but also essence: 'The soul possesses life not only as an activity, but also essentially, since it lives in its own right... For that reason, when the body passes away, the soul does not perish with it.' It remains immortal [by God's Grace].' [St Gregory Palamas 150 Chapters, ch 38]." Taken from Orthodox Psychotherapy by Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos), page 105.

[Fr Averky]

Dear Herman,

Interestingly enough, several years ago Father Alexey Young told me that he had read somewhere in one of the Fathers, but could not remember which one, that if a righteous person had a pet animal, like a cat or a dog, or perhaps a bull such as St. Aganfangel of the Kiev caves had, that that animal will be with him in heaven. I do not think that this is a heavenly reward for the "soul" of the animal in that sense, but as an added joy to the righteous one. I can give no proof of this, but like all animal lovers, if by some amazing mercy of God I were to receive salvation, there is one cat in particular that I would love to be with me for he brought me so much happiness during very difficult times. I do believe that animals have feelings, and can express them; sorrow, joy, anger, suffering, and sympathy and loyalty.

Fr. A.

[A Desert Aspirant]

For St.Palamas to have written about comparing the soul of man with that of animals, indicates belief in animals having souls. Good. But I'd read or heard that Catholic doctrine states animals have no soul. I have a hard time accepting this. I'm heretical on that, I guess. What to do.

[A Desert Aspirant]

Herman,
I have Orthodox Psychotherapy, and will look up the passage pertaining to animals having souls. Is that the closest to any official Orthodox doctrine on the matter?

[Alexis L. Williams]

Dear Fr. Averky,

Bless!

My dad once asked this same question of his spiritual father, and received essentially the same reply as you have given.

With Love In Christ,
the sinful reader Alexis

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Herman,

I liked your answer very much and found it commensurate with Thomas'& Lawrences.

Dear Rebecca, I know this will be a bit of a let down for you but Scripture says that because of what Thomas' post said about "breath" (Ruach).

We're talking about "rational souls" here. That, Dear A is why the Catholics won't call "soul" what Gregory Palamas is calling "soul (live) as an energy, not an essence." They are trying to say the same thing.

I loved Fr A's answer (being half Scotish I have a love for animals and pets!) I remember that George MacDonald (19th Century Scotish 'divine') that "Ol' Bess [a parishoner's horse which had died] would see [it's owner one day] in heaven" his salary was dropped to a pound a year forcing him out of the ministry!

And, just in case any of you wanted to know, my Lutheran Spiritual Father (i.e., the one though whom my conversion to Christ came) taught the Latin Catholic doctrine about it (but then, he wasn't Scotish but Norwegian!)

Richard

[Fr Averky]

Dear in Christ Alexis and Richard,

Since I have no "salary" to speak of, I will gladly give it all up to have my wonderful Kublai Khan with me, should God grant me that which I do not deserve. Even if I did have a salary, I would still give it up. Kublah, as we called, him, was a "cat-wonder," half Tabby and half Siamese, with Siamese coloration, sapphire blue eyes, and striped legs, tail, and face. He was the most intellignet, sensitive, delightful and loving animal I have ever owned, and even the Archbishop, who does not like for people, especially monks to have pets in their room, was genuinely delighted by the "Lord Emperor." When I got so very ill, I had to find him another home, and I miss him to this very day

Fr. A.

[Thomas Davidson]

Animals 'pop up' often in the Celtic Christian tradition and the lives of the saints - I recall one tale (vaguely, I'm afraid) of a monk who dropped his psalter into a river - and later an otter fished it out and returned it to him in his cell.

Animals may not be cognizant of God as we are (they have no intellectual faculty) but in my experience they know 'good' when they see it - in the abstract as well as concrete sense.

Tom

[A Desert Aspirant]

When my late mother (miss you mom) appears in my dreams, it is as if she is actually visiting, still very much alive in the spiritual realm. So, when a past pet appears so vividly in a dream, why can't it be that their semblance of a soul still exists in the spiritual dimension too?

[Herman Blaydoe]

For St.Palamas to have written about comparing the soul of man with that of animals, indicates belief in animals having souls. Good. But I'd read or heard that Catholic doctrine states animals have no soul. I have a hard time accepting this. I'm heretical on that, I guess. What to do.

Well, for me, the Catholic "doctrine" has no relevance. Regardless, we have to realize that the word "soul" is a construct, and different people use the word differently. Even within Orthodoxy, you see words like "soul" and "spirit" used somewhat indiscriminately, sometimes as substitutes for each other, others assigning specific and different meanings to each. And what one calls spirit the other calls soul. It is not the words we must focus on, but the concepts. Metropolitan Hiertheos comments on this at length.

He goes further to state that, contrary to some populist beliefs circulating today, there is no such thing as an inherently immortal soul. Immortality is granted to a soul by God, it cannot exist apart from God. According to St. Gregory as quoted by Metr. Hierotheos, the immortality granted by God to the "essense" of the human soul is not extended to the "energy" of the animal soul, at least that is how it seems to this simple mind.

[Herman Blaydoe]

I have Orthodox Psychotherapy, and will look up the passage pertaining to animals having souls. Is that the closest to any official Orthodox doctrine on the matter?

The Orthodox Church, as far as I am able to tell, does not have an "official doctrine" on the matter. The "Official Doctrine" is that which is contained in the Nicene Creed and as resolved in the 7 Ecumenical Councils. I do believe that "the Orthodox Church" would agree that what St. Gregory says represents a proper Orthodox understanding on the matter and is solidly based on the official doctrine as stated in the Creed and Councils.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Dear Herman,

I liked your answer very much and found it commensurate with Thomas'& Lawrences.

Well, I can't take credit for it. It was NOT my answer, but the pious Orthodox opinion of an individual highly regarded by the Orthodox Church, with which I have no reason to disagree. My opinion is not really worth the electricity expended to illumine your computer screen.

[A Desert Aspirant]

Herman, You say,"My opinion is not really worth...." Christianity would never have gotten off the ground if St. Paul and Stephen had had this attitude. Humility is vital, but the Holy Spirit instills a knowing too. Disciples DO become as their teacher.

[A Desert Aspirant]

H, Our awareness of Grace adheres us to this path. We do God's will not only because of written law, but because of the spiritual experiences we learn from. If a faith fails to instill spiritual knowledge in seekers, what's the purpose? At some point students must fly on their own!

[A Desert Aspirant]

Herman, I, too, consider myself a lifetime "student." But because of good teachers and teaching, I know I've grown spiritually. This only gives praise to God. How can staying in the "lurch" give glory to God? Your opinions are worth sharing.

[A Desert Aspirant]

Herman, I, too, consider myself a lifetime "student." But because of good teachers and teaching, I know I've grown spiritually. This only gives praise to God. How can staying in the "lurch" give glory to God? Your opinions are worth sharing.

[Herman Blaydoe]

The more I learn, the more I realize I don't know. I don't know what "spiritual knowledge" is. Sounds suspiciously gnostic to this simple mind. As an Orthodox Christian I am relieved to know that I will never have to "fly on my own." I can only fly to the extend that I allow Christ to lift me up, and it is through the Church that I am granted awareness of Grace. Orthodoxy has a word for those who "fly on their own": prelest.

One of the Desert Fathers wrote words to the effect that: "if you see your brother being lifted heavenward by aerial beings, grab his foot and pull him back down, they might not be angels." Lucifer (angel of light) has appeared even to the Desert Fathers in the likeness of Christ).

No, flying on my own is not what this simple one seeks.

<font size="-2">Your results may vary. The opinion expressed in this post does not necessarily represent the teaching of the Orthodox Church. Not legal in all states. Some settling of contents may have occured during shipping.</font>

Herman the simple

[Thomas Davidson]

The &#40;RC&#41; French lay theologian Jean Borella has written in some length regarding the tripartite anthropology of man &#39;body - soul - spirit&#39;.

Scripture tells us that the human soul is neither incorruptible: &#34;that through these &#40;promises of Christ&#41; you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature&#34; &#40;2 Peter 1:4&#41; and &#34;for whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved&#34; &#40;2:19&#41;, nor immortal: &#34;When you chastise man because of his iniquity, you condemn his soul to dissolution&#34; &#40;Psalms 39:12&#41;, &#34;And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell&#34; &#40;Matthew 10:28&#41; and: &#34;Then he said to them, &#34;My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch with me&#34; &#40;26:38 and Mark 14:34&#41;.

So Borella accords with the Fathers - it is a &#39;grave error&#39; &#40;quotes signify nothing more than a terrible pun&#41; to assume the soul is immortal.

[A Desert Aspirant]

Herman, You may not seek to &#34;fly on your own,&#34; but one day a situation will demand it, then you&#39;ll know the value of what your teachers&#40;and church&#41;taught you. One day you may get &#34;pushed&#34; out of your spiritual comfy zone & your Fr. won&#39;t be there to fly for you.

[A Desert Aspirant]

Thomas, Good pun! Good points. I&#39;ll see if Borella is on your site. Was he a contemporary of RC Fr. Lehodey? Differing much from DeCaussade and Chardin? I&#39;m assuming earlier, & focused on different matters. More to learn! In the meantime,I&#39;ll believe animals have a semblance of soul.

[Owen Jones]

There is a wonderful passage in NOt Of This World, by Fr. Damascene, about a small monastery in Platina, CA. During Vespers, the local dear would show up. During the appropriate time for standing, the dear would stand. During the appropriate time for sitting, the dear would lie down.

[A Desert Aspirant]

Owen, The &#34;dear,&#34; &#34;deer,&#34; or &#34;dear deer&#34;? http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif Your story reminds me of how St.Seraphim of Serov could communicate with the animals near his hermitage. Have a good day.

[Herman Blaydoe]

One day you may get "pushed" out of your spiritual comfy zone & your Fr. won't be there to fly for you.

My Father (in Heaven) promised He would always be there, not to fly FOR me, but to carry me in His Arms. My comfy zone (and not so comfy zone sometimes) is in His Presence. God forbid I should ever get pushed out. I suppose I am free to STEP OUT, but that is another issue yes?

[A Desert Aspirant]

H: Yes, equipped with knowledge of the Holy Spirit and God&#39;s grace you&#39;re never &#34;on your own.&#34; But we mustn&#39;t be overly dependant on our earthly guides forever; they leave us alone eventually. They pass away. You may know what I mean one day by out of a spiritual comfy zone.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Getting back to the subject at hand;

This simple mind would summarize the Orthodox teaching as follows:

Do animals have souls? - Yes, depending on your definition of soul

Do All Dogs go to Heaven &#40;Gospel according to Disney&#41;? - Not according to most Orthodox authorities

Will I see dear old Scruffy in Heaven &#40;in deference to Fr. A&#41;? - We&#39;ll find out if/when we get there...

[Rebecca]

Dear Richard L

I don&#39;t presume to interpret.

Fr. Thomas Hopko has said animals are praising the Lord all the time, fwiw.

I really like Psalm 148 too. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

[Jurretta J. Heckscher]

Dear discussion participants:

This topic of animals is very dear to my heart and one that I have pondered all my life, so please forgive me if I use up an inordinate amount of space on our Web pages to reflect on it. I promise to be quiet for a long time hereafter by way of compensation!

I thank everyone, especially Father Averky and Rebecca, for their insights. Like Father Averky, I have had countless occasions to thank God for His blessings in the form of the animals with which He has graced my life, who have taught me much about love &#40;and about humility, and about patience, and about joy--and about the love great enough to insist on inflicting veterinary visits and injections and pills for healing, just as the Lord wills for us to be taught and healed by sufferings equally unfathomable to us humans!&#41;.

Surely this question of animal immortality is a matter of faith and of the heart more than of doctrine; after all, the Church--its theological wisdom long centered on far more essential questions such as the nature of Christ and the nature of man--has not found it necessary to give it sustained or concerted attention. So I do believe it falls within the realm of &#34;theologoumena,&#34; private theological opinions that are not inconsistent with doctrine, and that what one believes about it depends very much on personal experience.

Speaking merely personally, since earliest childhood I have had a powerful sense that animals were not extinguished at death--at least, those animals &#40;I do not speak of insects, for instance&#41; capable of love and relationship. Of course, it is important to recognize the fundamental differences between animals and men; I suspect that a fear of blurring these differences lies behind the reluctance of some theological commentators to grant animals the possibility of immortality, but it seems to me that this fear is misplaced. Animals are not made in God&#39;s image, as we are; thus they do not have our freedom or our creativity and are not capable of reasoning and moral choice as are we.

And yet doesn&#39;t everything in creation bear in its depths some essential spark of God&#39;s life and of His being? &#40;I believe St. Maximos the Confessor wrote deeply about that, but I will not attempt to harness his insights here.&#41; The so-called &#34;higher&#34; animals, at least, clearly share with men and with angels--and with God Himself--the gift of unique personal distinctiveness &#40;even my identical twin cats, brothers from the same litter who spent their whole lives together, differed greatly in personality--and now we learn that cloned cats, for example, have personalities demonstrably different from those of the cats from whom they were cloned!&#41;. Most tellingly, many kinds of animals love in a way recognizably like our own loving--and at the heart of our faith is the recognition that love is of God and is not quenched by death.

There are some beautiful hints about all this in Scripture. For instance, Mark 16: 15 &#40;RSV&#41; gives us the words of Christ Himself: &#34;And he said to them, &#39;Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation&#39;&#34; &#40;some other translations render this last phrase &#34;all creatures&#34; or &#34;every creature&#34;&#41;. I cannot begin to know the full meaning of this commandment, but since the essence of the Gospel is the invitation to repent because the Kingdom is at hand, and the Lord can hardly be telling us to tell animals to repent &#40;because they lack the human capacity for choice&#41;, He must be telling us to proclaim to them by our words and our deeds the presence and reality for them of the Kingdom of love that knows no death.

And so some saints preach to animals quite literally: not merely the well-known St. Francis of Assissi &#40;who because of his humble love for the whole of creation will probably be the first Western saint honored by the Orthodox if ever the Catholic Church is again reconciled with us!&#41;, but such beautiful modern icons of Christ as Blessed Father Isidore of Gethsemane Skete at the turn of the last century in Russia, spiritual father to &#40;St.&#41; Pavel Florensky &#40;read his wonderful book about him, Salt of the Earth, if you can find it!&#41;, who loved animals and used to preach and sing psalms to the frogs who lived around his cell.

And here is Romans 8 &#40;RSV&#41;, perhaps the most explicit Scriptural passage concerning the destiny of animals and of the whole of the non-human creation: &#34;19: For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God;
20: for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope;
21: because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22: We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now;
23: and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.&#34;

We know that animals share in the consequences of man&#39;s Fall: they suffer, they cannot avoid inflicting suffering &#40;as when one animal hunts and kills another&#41;, and at times--as in the case of the Gerasene &#40;Gadarene&#41; swine &#40;Mark 5: 1-13&#41;--they are the sacrificial victims of man&#39;s entanglement with the Enemy. But St. Paul seems to be confirming for us in this passage that they also participate in our salvation, in our journey to resurrection and immortality in Christ. &#34;In his way to union with God, man in no way leaves creatures aside, but gathers together in his love the whole cosmos disordered by sin, that it may at last be transfigured by grace&#34; &#40;Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, 1976 ed., p. 111&#41;.

Don&#39;t we see many other hints of this in our own lives, and in the life of the Church? St. Isaac the Syrian tells us &#40;Homily 77&#41; that even fierce wild animals recognize the presence of holy people, and become tame and gentle with them--surely an image of the Kingdom to which animals are called along with us. In the presence of the saints, the wild beasts recognize their destiny, which is to share in God&#39;s eternal love and all-holy Presence. One thinks of St. Seraphim of Sarov and his beloved forest bear, to whom he used to give bread; or of St. Herman of Alaska, whose special companion was an Alaskan Kodiak bear &#40;a fierce animal indeed!&#41;. In our own day, I believe it was Elder Joseph of Mt. Athos--a man of great holiness who died within living memory &#40;though it may have been another recent Athonite saint&#41;--who had a special love for snakes, and who astonished a man coming to see him for the first time by sorrowfully rebuking him for having killed one of the Elder&#39;s &#34;friends&#34;--a poisonous snake!--earlier the same day.

And of course there are countless stories of saints ministering tenderly to other animals; one of my favorites is the tale of St. Kevin of Glendalough, a great early Irish saint &#40;6th century&#41;, who spent many a night praying with arms outstretched in the ancient fashion--and when, it is said, a blackbird came and made her nest in his outstretched hand, he remained standing thus until the baby birds had hatched and left the nest, so as not to disturb them!

In such saints one sees the fulfillment of St. Isaac the Syrian&#39;s portrait &#40;Homily 8&#41; of the &#34;merciful heart,&#34; the heart which &#34;cannot bear to hear or see any injury or slight sorrow in creation&#34; and &#34;continually offers up tearful prayer, even for the animals . . . because of the great compassion that burns in his heart without measure in the likeness of God.&#34; If the saints&#39; compassionate love for animals indeed mirrors God&#39;s, how can we believe that God would countenance their final destruction in death? or that He Who will love for all eternity every demon who rejects Him will not also love for all eternity each of the blameless animals, whose dwelling first welcomed on earth His incarnate Son? For Christ our Emmanuel--&#34;God with us&#34;--was first of all not only with us but with the animals, and so I must believe it will be in His Kingdom. &#40;And I think here of the beautiful old Russian folk custom which breaks the Christmas Eve fast by feeding the animals of the household first, in honor of their place in the Nativity.&#41;

Another hint that animals are destined to enter the Kingdom is the way that God uses them, much as He uses His angels, to minister to us, to bring the light of the Kingdom into the fallen world even now. Think how often people who feel themselves unloved, or unlovable, or incapable of love--the elderly in nursing homes, or people whose inner wounds make it difficult or impossible for them to form deep human relationships--experience the real love they do not receive from their fellow men in the companionship of an animal. Don&#39;t we all know of &#34;difficult,&#34; isolated, or eccentric people, outwardly unlovable by typical human standards, whose only sources of deep love seem to be God and their dog or cat? The therapeutic value of animals &#40;patting a dog, for instance, has been proven to lower blood pressure&#41; is now so widely recognized that there are many programs to bring pets into nursing homes and hospitals to &#34;minister&#34; to ill and lonely residents. And I know of a number of incarcerated violent criminals who began taking care of a group of stray cats at their prison--and who were able to show protective love to these cats as they had hitherto been unable to show it to human beings. The cats, it seemed obvious, were revealing to these brutal and bitter men that however dark their past and unlovable their present, they were capable of giving and receiving love.

Finally, there is the constant witness of little children: children seem naturally to love animals, to gravitate to them, reach out to them, and find spontaneous kinship with them. And &#34;to such,&#34; the Lord tells us &#40;Matt. 19: 14&#41; &#34;belongs the kingdom of heaven.&#34;

Well, I&#39;ve said more than enough. But I will end with one more story: for many years, until his death perhaps 15 years ago, there lived at the monastery of Simonopetra on Mt. Athos a monk, Fr. Gelasios &#40;&#34;the smiling one&#34;&#41;, whose special ministry was to cats. In his youth a cat had saved his life by attacking &#40;and being bitten by&#41; a venomous snake that was about to strike him, and he nursed the cat back to health and spent the rest of his life taking care of the colony of cats around the monastery, even bringing them food from the refectory. &#40;In the book Athos: The Holy Mountain, by Philip Sherrard, there is a wonderful picture of him walking along with a crowd of cats, all with their tails up in happiness.&#41; His own holiness eventually became obvious to others, and at one point he was asked by a visitor &#40;who told me the story&#41; whether cats would enter the Kingdom. Of course, he replied. Why? asked the visitor. &#34;Because,&#34; he replied, &#34;they spend their entire lives making us joyful.&#34;

Surely that is true, and surely many cats and other animals will also be at home in the Kingdom because by loving them we have called forth from them their love and their response to ours. By loving them--&#34;preaching the Gospel&#34; to them, as Christ commanded--we prepare them and ourselves for eternity. Father Averky, my heart aches for what you must have felt in having to give up your dear Kublah. May the Lord comfort you and care for him all his remaining days, and reunite you where death has no dominion--but when he enters into God&#39;s presence in eternity, as I believe he will, surely he will recognize his home in Christ&#39;s love because of the love which he found in you!

Yours in Christ,

--Jurretta

[A Desert Aspirant]

Rebecca, Psalm 148 is nice. The notes say it &#34;doesn&#39;t distinguish between inanimate & animate &#40;rational&#41; nature.&#34; Animals do have enough intelligence to guide the visually challenged. &#40;When the visually challenged lead the visually challenged, both fall into the pit.&#41;

[A Desert Aspirant]

Juretta, What a thorough & beautiful essay. It says much, and combined with comments above forms a satifactory response to the original question on whether Orthodox thought supports animals as having souls.

[Thomas Davidson]

Dionysius the Areopagite &#40;St Denys to you!&#41; - &#34;The Celestial Hierarchy: Chapter 2 -
&#34;That Divine and Celestial matters are fittingly revealed even through unlike symbols&#34;

paragpraphs 9-10:
&#34;In the case of the irrational or the insensitive things, such as brutes among living creatures, or inanimate objects, we rightly say that these are deprived of reason, or of sense-perception. But we fittingly proclaim the sovereignty, as Supermundane Beings, of the immaterial and intellectual Natures over our discursive and corporeal reasoning and sense-perceptions, which are remote from those Divine Intelligences.

It is therefore lawful to portray Celestial Beings in forms drawn from even the lowest of material things which are not discordant since they, too, having originated from That which is truly beautiful, have throughout the whole of their bodily constitution some vestiges of Intellectual Beauty, and through these we may be led to immaterial Archetypes; the similitudes being taken, as has been said, dissimilarly, and the same things being defined, not in the same way, but harmoniously and fittingly, in the case both of intellectual and sensible natures.&#34;

[M A Jackson-Roberts]

In this at least I am at one with Father Averky, for as a remote descendant of the author Christopher Smart &#40;&#34;For I will remember my cat Jeffery&#34;: from Jubilate Agno, set to music by
Benjamin Britten&#41; I too am possessed of a cat of exceeding beauty and grace of being, a help in many troubled times, that I would wish to be with me for all eternity.

the seeker

[Fr Averky]

Dear seeker

I do not recall seeing your name before, but I am glad to know that &#34;at least&#34; you are at one with me concerning cats. That at least is enough for me, and I will fervently pray that both you and your wonderful cat will spend eternity in heaven together.

Fr. A.

&#34;Pray for me
as I will for thee,
that we will merrily
meet in heaven,&#34;

St. Thomas More

[Fr Averky]

Sorry Seeker,

I just looked at your profile. I am sorry that Christianity was not what you have been seeking. We still have in common our mutual love for cats, and that makes me happy. I just got a new kitten, and I named him Stanley. He is a strawberry blond and white Tabby, and is quite bright and sensitive. His mother died when he was but a kitten, and he and his siblings were given to a farmer&#39;s wife who had a mother cat who was nursing at the time. She took the kittens in, but only Stanley survived. He must have a sense of that loss, for whenever I am in my work space where he lives, he wants me to hold him constantly.. I will be praying for you.

Fr. Averky.

[M A Jackson-Roberts]

Dear Father A,
Many thanks for your prayers, which are welcome. I am a seeker after truth, wherever it may be found, and it would be more correct to say that I have for the present stepped off the escalator &#40;no wonder, given the pitiful state of both the Church of England - my mother church - and the RC church of my adoption&#41; than that I have abandoned Christianity altogether. For I am after all here, on this website, learning all the time from those well grounded in faith and learning.

Another thing we evidently have in common, as you will have seen from my profile, is a profound love of the monastic way, which I attempt to follow as best I can whilst living and working &#34;in the world&#34;. Buddhism is, it seems to me, a sane place to be for following the spiritual path when other avenues are for whatever reason blocked. I do not know any Orthodox people other than those on this site, so cannot readily access their experience. Local churches here in North London are very ethnically specific &#40;Greek Cypriot&#41; and do not welcome enquiring outsiders.

I remain for now, sincerely, a seeker.

[Waldemar]

&#34;A dog is better than I am, for he has love and he does not judge.&#34; - Abba Xanthias

[Thomas Davidson]

&#34;I wish I was half the man my dog thinks I am.&#34;
&#40;source forgotten&#41;

[Justin]

&#34;People were not created merely to live here on earth like animals that disappear after their death, but to live with God and in God, and to live not for a hundred or a thousand years, but to live eternally. But only Christians can live with God: that is to say, those who rightly believe in Jesus Christ.&#34; - The opening line to Indication of the Way Into the Kingdom of Heaven by Saint Innocent of Alaska

[Waldemar]

&#34;Beliefs in the spirituality of the natural world were very salient in Eskimo culture. Animals were thought to resemble humans in having souls or spirits that could think, feel, and talk. Eskimos believed that animals would give themselves voluntarily to the hunter who acted properly toward them, and the purpose of many ritual practices was in fact to show respect for and give thanks to the spirits of animals taken for food. &#34;

From: Encyclopedia of North American Indians (http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/naind/html/na_011300_eskimo.htm)

Do our Orthodox Yupik brethren in Alaska still hold to these beliefs?

[Jurretta J. Heckscher]

Dear Waldemar:

Father Michael J. Oleksa has two books which might be able to answer that question: Alaskan Missionary Spirituality &#40;1987&#41;, which he edited, and Orthodox Alaska: A Theology of Mission &#40;1992&#41;. He is an Orthodox priest living in Alaska, married to a Native Alaskan woman, and very knowledgeable about &#40;and appreciative of&#41; the cultural and spiritual history of the Orthodox Christians there who are of Native Alaskan heritage.

Yours in Christ,

--Jurretta

[Waldemar]

From:

History full of ‘smart’ animal stories
by Robert Holdgreve
http://www.delphosherald.com/page2.php?story=3187&archive=

Faithful Companion in the Bible

In the Old Testament Book of Tobit, Tobias sets off on a trek to collect a debt to help his blind father. He is accompanied on his journey by the angel Raphael and a small dog. After all the adventures have finished, he returns home, the dog running ahead&#42; to announce his arrival. Tradition maintains that this dog even proceeded Tobias into heaven. It is this story that accounts for the sustained popularity of the name Toby for dogs.

&#42; &#34;Then the dog, which had been with them in the way, ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail.&#34;

Tobit 11:9 &#40;Douay Rheims&#41;

----------

St. Patrick

Patrick MacAlpern’s life was strangely entwined with dogs. Around A.D. 400, at age sixteen, Patrick was abducted by Irish marauders. He was enslaved and kept as a shepherd for six years, his sole companion being a dog. In response to a dream, he made his way to the coast, where he found the ship that the dream foretold would return him to his own land.

The ship was from Gaul, and the master had put into Irish waters in order to get a cargo of hunting hounds, which were bringing fabulous prices on European markets. Not surprisingly, as a penniless runaway slave, Patrick was received unsympathetically when he tried to gain passage. However, just as he was leaving, he was suddenly called back. Over one hundred great Irish wolfhounds now packed the holds and filled the deck of the ship. Taken from their masters and their familiar surroundings, the giant dogs were frantic and furious, ready to attack anyone who came near. Some of the sailors had noticed that during Patrick’s brief visit to the ship, he had spoken with some of the dogs and seemed to have a calming effect on them. Therefore, in exchange for feeding, cleaning up after, and otherwise caring for the dogs — Patrick received passage to the continent.

The ship was badly underprovisioned and reached a ruined and deserted section of Gaul with nothing left to feed dogs or men. Because the dogs were worth more than the ship, the crew abandoned the ship, and set off on foot, heading inland. With no inhabitants or food in the area, the dogs and men were soon in jeopardy of dying of starvation. The shipmaster, who had learned that Patrick was a Christian, turned to him and in a taunting manner said, “If your god is so great, then pray to him to send us food.” Patrick did so, and the story goes, a miracle occurred. A herd of wild pigs appeared, seemingly from nowhere. Instead of bolting and running, as one might have expected, the swine stayed long enough for the starving men, with the assistance of the dogs, to kill some of them, providing meat for all. Patrick’s reputation rose considerably, and, after the dogs were marketed, the crew made a gift to him of some food and money to help him on his way.

Many years later, he returned to Ireland, and his goal was to preach Christianity. It seems the news that a strange ship had just landed, from which emerged white-robed men with clean shaved heads who chanted in a strange tongue, prompted an Irish prince named to go to the coast to investigate the situation. He was accompanied by his favorite large hunting dog. Observing St. Patrick’s missionary group, Dichie decided that the best course was to kill these odd clerics and be done with it. With a shout he set his dog at Patrick. The dog lept forward in full fury, but when Patrick uttered a short prayer, the dog halted, grew quiet, and then approached Patrick and nuzzled his hand. Dichie was so touched by this scene that he aided Patrick’s mission in Ireland in many ways.

The point of these stories seems to be that the dogs could somehow sense or respond to Patrick’s piety. According to Irish folklore, Patrick repaid dogs for their deference to him by allowing the legendary character Oissain, to take hounds to heaven with him when he died, where we can suppose that they are keeping Tobias’s little dog company.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Waldemar,
I very much appreciate your post about The Book of Tobias. It is the sole scriptural reference I believe to my guardian Archangel Raphael. The explanation of why dogs can be named Toby is very sweet. I will try to keep it in mind.
By the way- did anyone ever come up with the answer to, &#34;do animals have souls?&#34; I have been wondering for a long time whether the souls of animals survive death- or perhaps I should say my cat keeps asking me the question & I just can&#39;t seem to find the answer yet!
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Father Raphael,

Common souls.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Matthew,
I do not know what &#39;common souls&#39; means. Could you explain?
In Christ-Fr Raphael

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Father,

I think I first read the term in the Orthodox Study Bible when I locate the text I will post it. Anyway, I think in short a cat does what a cat does in the cat&#39;s role in creation individually and collectively. I might add I&#39;m often reminded by a loving dog that some animals are quite loving and not judgemental irrespective circumstances.

Saint Basil&#39;s Homily VIII &#40;The Hexaemeron&#41; The Creation of Fowl and Water Animals is a good read on the subject matter a small part of which I have posted below. Saint John Chrysostom has written much on Genesis as well.

2. &#34;Let the earth bring forth a living soul.&#34; Why did the earth produce a living soul? so that you may make a difference between the soul of cattle and that of man. You will soon learn how the human soul was formed; hear now about the soul of creatures devoid of reason. Since, according to Scripture, &#34;the life of every creature is in the blood,&#34; as the blood when thickened changes into flesh, and flesh when corrupted decomposes into earth, so the soul of beasts is naturally an earthy substance. &#34;Let the earth bring forth a living soul.&#34; See the affinity of the soul with blood, of blood with flesh,of flesh with earth; and remounting in an inverse sense from the earth to the flesh, from the flesh to the blood, from the blood to the soul, you will find that the soul of beasts is earth. Do not suppose that it is older than the essence of their body, nor that it survives the dissolution of the flesh; avoid the nonsense of those arrogant philosophers who do not blush to liken their soul to that of a dog; who say that they have been formerly themselves women, shrubs, fish. Have they ever been fish? I do not know; but I do not fear to affirm that in their writings they show less sense than fish. &#34;Let the earth bring forth the living creature.&#34; Perhaps many of you ask why there is such a long silence in the middle of the rapid rush of my discourse. The more studious among my auditors will not be ignorant of the reason why words fail me. What! Have I not seen them look at each other, and make signs to make me look at them, and to remind me of what I have passed over? I have forgotten a part of the creation, and that one of the most considerable, and my discourse was almost finished without touching upon it. &#34;Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament, of heaven.&#34; I spoke of fish as long as eventide allowed: to-day we have passed to the examination of terrestrial animals; between the two, birds have escaped as. We are forgetful like travellers who unmindful of some important object, are obliged, although they be far on their road, to retrace their steps, punished for their negligence by the weariness of the journey. So we have to turn back. That which we have omitted is not to be despised. It is the third part of the animal creation, if indeed there are three kinds of animals, land, winged and water.&#34;Let the waters&#34; it is said &#34;bring forth abundantly moving creature that hath life and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.&#34; Why do the waters give birth also to birds? Because there is, so to say, a family link between the creatures that fly and those that swim. In the same way that fish cut the waters, using their fins to carry them forward and their tails to direct their movements round and round and straightforward, so we see birds float in the air by the help of their wings. Both endowed with the property of swimming, their common derivation from the waters has made them of one family. At the same time no bird is without feet, because finding all its food upon the earth it cannot do without their service. Rapacious birds have pointed claws to enable them to close on their prey; to the rest has been given the indispensable ministry of feet to seek their food and to provide for the other needs of life. There are a few who walk badly, whose feet are neither suitable for walking nor for preying. Among this number are swallows, incapable of walking and seeking their prey, and the birds called swifts who live on little insects carried about by the air. As to the swallow, its flight, which grazes the earth, fulfils the function of feet.




St. Maximos the Confessor has written:
Man is not a being isolated from the rest of creation; by his very nature he is bound up with the whole of the universe... In his way to union with God, man in no way leaves creatures aside, but gathers together in his love the whole cosmos disordered by sin, that it may be transfigured by grace.

St. John of Kronstadt has written:

Do not breathe malice, vengence, and murder even towards animals, lest your own soul should be given up to death by the spiritual enemy breathing wickedness in you even toward dumb animals, and lest you should become accustomed to breathe malice and vengence against men also. Remember, that animals are called to life by God&#39;s mercy that they may enjoy their existence as much as they can during their short life. &#34;The Lord is good to all.&#34;&#40;Ps. cxlv.9&#41; Do not beat them if they are unreasonable, or if they play tricks, or if any of your property is damaged by them. &#34;Blessed is the man who is merciful to his beast.&#34;

Our Church has a tape for sale regarding the subject matter.

[link] (http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/01newstucture/pagesen/english/pages/news/francefilm.html)

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin


&#40;Message edited by admin on 07 June, 2004&#41;

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Matthew,
Thanks so much for those beautiful quotes from the fathers- I will have to let the part about animal souls sink in. The holy fathers think in such a different way from most of us; one almost has to go through a spiritual detox from ones own way of thinking when one encounters ideas like these. It is a very holy perspective which I think St. Paul refers to:&#34;then we shall see clearly.&#34; Part of our spiritual growth is catching glimpses that the fog we live in is not reality. So with animals we see them as either beasts or as new-age artists ready to jump out of their skin &#40;if we could only figure out a way to get them to paint or speak!&#41;.
The quote from St. Basil is similiar to a passage found in St Gregory the Theologian, &#34;Look, again, at the types of birds, with the manifold varieties of design and color all of them, including song-birds, possess. How are we to account for their music, and where did they get it? Who puts a sounding-board in the cicada&#39;s chest with the chirping songs it makes in the branches? Whenever the Sun sets them going they make mid-day music, stirring the groves and giving the traveler an escort of sound. Who wove the web of song for the swan, when it spreads out its wings to the breeze, turning its hissing into melody?&#34; &#40;Oration 28, chap. 24&#41;
Such a worshipful&#40;yet not idolatrous&#41; attitude towards God&#39;s creation.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[M A Jackson-Roberts]

Father Raphael:

my 3 cats&#39; answer to the question is &#34;of course we do. If you are going to survive physical death then we shall also be there to continue demonstrating our undoubted superiority over humans&#34;!

seeker

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear M A Jackson-Roberts-
Thank you for that. I was wondering how I was going to break the news to my cat that her soul would not survive her earthly journey- it would have been heart-breaking!
Fr R
PS: I just told my cat the news; she replies, &#34;I do not like your DOG-matic assertions- I am CAT-lick.&#34;

[Herman Blaydoe]

"In comparing the soul of man with that of animals, St. Gregory [Palamas] says that animals possess a soul not as essence, but as an energy. 'The soul of each of the irrational animals is the life for the body it animates, and so animals possess life not essentially, but as an energy, since this life is dependent on something else and is not self-subsistent.' Therefore since the soul of animals has only energy, it dies with the body. By contrast, the soul of man has not only energy but also essence: 'The soul possesses life not only as an activity, but also essentially, since it lives in its own right... For that reason, when the body passes away, the soul does not perish with it.' It remains immortal .' [St Gregory Palamas 150 Chapters, ch 38]."

Taken from Orthodox Psychotherapy by Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos), page 105.

We have to realize that the word "soul" is a construct, and different people use the word differently. Even within Orthodoxy, you see words like "soul" and "spirit" used somewhat indiscriminately, sometimes as substitutes for each other, others assigning specific and different meanings to each. And what one calls spirit the other calls soul. It is not the words we must focus on, but the concepts. Metropolitan Hiertheos comments on this at length.

He goes further to state that, contrary to some populist beliefs circulating today, there is no such thing as an inherently immortal soul. Immortality is granted to a soul by God, it cannot exist apart from God. According to St. Gregory as quoted by Metr. Hierotheos, the immortality granted by God to the "essense" of the human soul is not extended to the "energy" of the animal soul, at least that is how it seems to this simple mind.

This simple mind would summarize the Orthodox teaching as follows:

Do animals have souls? - Yes, depending on your definition of soul

Do All Dogs go to Heaven (Gospel according to Disney)? - Not according to most Orthodox authorities

Will I see dear old Scruffy in Heaven (in deference to Fr. A)? - We'll find out if/when we get there...

[B]DISCLAIMER The ideas expressed here may or may not reflect the opinion of the poster. Text may contain material some readers may find objectionable, spiritual guidance is advised. Not responsible for direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages resulting from any defect, use of sarcasm, or failure to suit your particular sense of humor (or lack thereof). Some shifting of context may have occurred during shipment. For external use only. Void where prohibited. Not legal in all spiritual states. Consult a licensed and reputable spiritual advisor before applying. For recreational use only. May exceed the maximum recommended daily dose of irony. If a rash, redness, irritation, or swelling develops, discontinue use. If condition persists, consult your spiritual physician. This notice applies to all posts by this poster whether or not it is included in the post and supercedes all previous disclaimers.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Herman,

I have been looking for that quote for a year now about how animals possess a soul not as essence but as energy. I thought I had read it in St. John of Damascus. Not that I really understand what it means yet!

I wonder though. It is a clear Orthodox teaching that the creation groans (including animals) because of man's sin; death came because of man; so man is the cause of the death of animals; (yes? I suppose so since they are not the cause of the Fall & of death). Now we also know that at the Second Coming of Christ death will be destroyed- so does not it follow that animals will then no longer die? At least -and this is only idle speculation I guess- the animals that were already here when Christ returns? So the conclusion from this is that a time will come when animals will no longer die and will be with us in the Kingdom. If they are not present when WE die (assuming we die before Christ's Second Coming) as an aspect of the 'groaning' of creation just as we also will not have yet our resurrected bodies, they will certainly be there after the Second Coming. Hmmm! Have to make sure that gets into the next edition of the Law of God book!

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

A description of animals in Paradise

This comes from Eternal Mysteries Beyond the Grave: ps.122-26. It comes from the Life of St. Simeon the Stylite, May 24.

"Of all the visions of the Holy Fathers that are known to us, the most vivid & detailed vision of Paradise is that which appeared to St. Andrew, a fool for Christ's sake, who for two weeks supernaturally contemplated the invisible Paradise. He told his vision to a man who knew his secrets, Nicephorus. This is what he said, 'I saw that I was in a beautiful and most marvellous garden...I saw myself dressed in a most light garment which seemed woven from lightening; on my head was a crown made of large flowers, and I was girded with a belt worthy of a king...I saw many gardens with tall trees ...their branches emitted a wonderful fragrance...There were countless multitudes of birds in these gardens. Some were sitting on the branches of the trees and sang beautifully- so beautifully that I did not remember who I was, so sweetly was my heart affected. It seemed to me that their song reached the very height of heaven."

Of course these visions do not represent a scientific description of Paradise- different visions vary. But they do represent a general and over-arching truth. So it is interesting to see the descriptions of things like gardens, trees, and yes- birds. What is clear here is that this is a world unaffected by the Fall, a beyond-beautiful & harmonious world with Christ, the Theotokos & the saints in 'the middle' of Paradise. (This comes later on in the description of the vision) Much of this is not possible to describe properly in words- but it is interesting that what is described is something sensory if refined, relative to our standards. So perhaps there is a promise that animals will be even in the future world.

In Christ- Fr R

[Marie-Duquette]

Dear Members of Monachos Board.

I have been reading this thread with much interest and thanks to God. For, in creating, each creature was given a purpose in His loving, merciful Plan. As to whether or not animals have souls, and also the possibility of their living on in the &#34;world to come&#34; I do not know. All I know is that for me, I have experienced a few times a connectedness with God in deep peace-filled ways, animals having been the bearers of a comforting, silent message; and this after my mother&#39;s death.

While house sitting once for a friend in the wilds of Maine, a deep feeling of nostalgia came over me, missing my mother deeply, and tears started flowing from my eyes. The shepherd-dog was quietly napping in &#34;her chair&#34; as I was looking over the hills through the large windows.
All of a sudden the dog left its place and came over to me and nuzzled me and looked at me with a kind of knowing that filled me with a sense of wonder, of deep peace and joy and gratitude, that one of God&#39;s creatures, a beautiful dog, was a comfort to me in this solitary moment of sorrowful grieving in the rememberance of my dear mother.

How could this animal, thus act in my behalf? except through the intervention of the Mercy and Compassion of our Living, Present God? So, I do give &#34;glory to God for all things!

Sometimes it feel as if, my soul wishes to be constantly praising God for the Beauty and Wisdom of His created universe!

marie duquette

[Gilbert Gandenberger]

My thoughts on this:
The Garden of Eden was created by God as good, not intended to be temporary.

Man fell, and all of creation has been affected. But only Man fell &#40;leaving aside of course the angels at this point . . . &#41;

I believe pets are an echo to us, as for instance Marie-Duquette&#39;s story illustrates, of a close connection between animals & man and God.

All of creation celebrates the glory of God, if we read the Psalms, for example, as being realistic and not just poetic/allegorical. See for example Pss 8, 19, 65, 84:3, 96: 11-13, 148, & 150:6. See also Isaiah 11: 2-9.

I think we are mixing two issues here, &#40;1&#41; do animals have souls &#40;whatever that means!&#41; &#40;2&#41; will animals be in heaven with us.

Personally, my understanding of &#34;soul&#34; is so mixed between the various definitions that it approaches being a term that causes more trouble than I can handle, esp. in discussions such as these. So I beg ignorance on this, and no opinion, many questions.

As far as animals in heaven, I have an opinion based on the Scriptures noted above, and the thought that only man has been barred from heaven &#40;again, leaving angels out of the discussion&#41;, don&#39;t see anywhere that the rest of creation is barred. Scripture deals with how many has been redeemed, and connects creation&#39;s groaning with man&#39;s sin, but not any sense of &#34;guilt&#34; or consignment to non-existence at death for any of God&#39;s creatures. So I don&#39;t see any reason to think animals WON&#39;T be in heaven with the saints, and many reasons to think they will!

Certainly not creedal issue, but meditating on this over the past five years or so has made me re-think the Fall, and heaven such that I treat God&#39;s creation differently now.

My two cents!

[Jurretta J. Heckscher]

Dear friends:

Recently Father John Breck, a distinguished pastor and emeritus faculty member at both l&#39;Institut Saint-Serge and St. Vladimir&#39;s Orthodox Theological Seminary, published a beautiful and poignant reflection on the possibility of immortality for animals, based on the death of a beloved dog. You can read it at [Link] (http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Publications/LifeinChrist/2004/march.html#mar02).

Yours in Christ,

--Jurretta

&#40;Message edited by admin on 10 June, 2004&#41;

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

In Ancient Greek philosophy, anything with self-movement has soul. All matter, if moved, is moved from outside itself. Dead matter does not move itself. Life moves itself. Living matter. The principle of movement is from within.

Anything that has self-movement has soul. It is what moves a thing. All living things are made of dead matter. Humans are 75% water, the rest carbon, nitrogen etc. None of this is alive. The principle of life is somewhere else. This is called soul. Plants, Amoeba, bacteria, Animals, Humans have souls. Only humans are immortal for we share in the divine spark. God &#34;&#42;breathed&#42;&#34; onto the human mud form and we recieved life. We share more with God for God implanted to us the power of reasoning. The human soul is partly divine. Animal and Plant souls are not immortal but nonetheless they have soul. All souls came from God for he is the source of all life. For he is life.

Plant souls have the power of growth and reproduction.

Animal Souls have the same powers as plants but with one more power and that is of movement.

Human souls have the plant and animal powers plus one more, that of reasoning.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Mr Wheeler,

I found your last post in this thread &#40;your #10, on souls&#41; interesting, though perhaps a bit troubling vis-a-vis the terminology of &#39;soul&#39; as applied to all living things &#40;e.g. plants, amoeba, bateria, as per a few of your examples&#41;. More still in the closing remarks, on plants having certain souls, while animals with the abilities of motion have souls of &#39;more power&#39;. I agree that there is some warrant for this among various classical Greek philosophies; but it is un-patristic to the best of my knowledge. It seems to me also essentially unscriptural. I would be curious to know your thoughts on how it applies &#40;if at all&#41; to a Christian view on the soul.

As a connected aside, there is no consensus among the fathers that the human soul is itself naturally immortal, nor inherently divine. These are characteristics imbued in the human soul as that which breathes the life &#40;eternal and divine&#41; of God&#39;s Spirit into the human person. Only God is immortal; a human soul &#40;together with the human body&#41; is so only by participation in the divine life. In this sense, the soul is no more eternal, no more life-ful, than the body.

INXC, Matthew

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

I was a Roman Catholic for a long time. Post #10 is valid in Roman Catholic Philosophy. Plato talks of this in the Laws.

God is not immortal. God is eternal. There is a difference in meaning between immortal and eternal. Immortal is a definite beginning in time with no end. And eternal is no beginning and no end. God is eternal. Humans are immortal.

Why a Hell? Couldn&#39;t God just end their existence of evil spirits and men? No God Can not. Existence is a good. No matter what. God can not go against good for God is good. He can do no wrong. To put the devil and the evil men out of existence is to do a great evil. That is what Hell is. A place to put bad souls in because God can&#39;t take them out of existence.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Mr Wheeler,

Thank you for your response to my previous message. In it you wrote:


I was a Roman Catholic for a long time. Post #10 is valid in Roman Catholic Philosophy. Plato talks of this in the Laws.

This may be; however, I am still curious to know how you view it as pertaining to a valid Christian view of the soul.

You also wrote:


God is not immortal. God is eternal. There is a difference in meaning between immortal and eternal. Immortal is a definite beginning in time with no end. And eternal is no beginning and no end. God is eternal. Humans are immortal.

This does not square with patristic usage. We might agree that the two terms are different, and that the term 'eternal' specifically relates to an infinity with respect to time (or beyond time, as many of the fathers present it). But the fathers do not use the term 'immortal' simply as 'a definite beginning in time with no end' -- in fact, since the time of Arius, they emphatically do not use it in this manner. Rather, 'immortal' (Gr. athanatos) implies that the subject is not bound by death (as the Greek term makes exceptionally clear). In this sense it is eminently appropriate for use with respect to God, and it is so very often in the patristic writings, as in the Church's liturgical tradition, one hymn of which in fact draws together these very two terms: 'Thou only art immortal, Thou only art eternal, O Christ our God...'.

This further makes clear another point: humans are neither eternal nor immortal as pertains to their own nature. So Irenaeus: God gave the sign of Jonas, together with his unexpected salvation from the whale, that humankind might learn that 'it does not possess eternity or imperishability of its own nature', but rather that these things are gifts of God. Of itself, the human creation possesses neither. But through the power of God, the 'corruptible is made incorruptible, and the temporal eternal' (again Irenaeus). Thus in the funeral hymns of the Church, the departed is commended to the embrace of God, who in the resurrection shall raise him or her up to a state of immortality ('where their is neither sickness nor sighing, nor death...'), to a life which is joined to God's own eternity (thus the consisten refrain, 'eternal memory').

INXC, Matthew

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear W. Lindsay Wheeler,

This sort of came to my mind quickly.

Agios O Theos, Agios Eeskhiros, Agios Athanatos,
Eleison imas.

Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal,
Have mercy on us.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

Eternal in the philosophical and the theological sense is represented in the Greek word, &#34;aiwvios&#34;.

From the 20 vol Oxford English dictionary, eternal means infinte in past and future duration without beginning or end; that always has existed and always will.

From the OED, Immortal, not mortal, not liable or subject to death; deathless, undying; living for ever.

Immortal is used of the Persian bodyguard of the King. Applied to the Greek gods of mythology.

The adjective of the word can be applied to the Christian God as Matthew has pointed out.

The Church Fathers are guides but are not infallible. The reference to the hymn of eternal memory is that of heaven, but the evil also live. They live in hell. Hell is also said to be &#34;eternal&#34;. Hell really is immortal. Without end. Evil Human beings are not put out of existence but kept immortal in the depths of hell. We, I hope us that are saved, will not remember them but God will remember us eternally. It is Christian to view all living things with souls. Plants and bacteria have souls. Not immortal nor eternal but finite souls.

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

The word comes from the Latin. Athanatos and immortalis both were used first of Greek gods and Roman gods who were born but had no death. These words were first used of these gods. The word then moved into Christian terminology. The Christians were not the first to use these terms. I think it a big error and against the Socratic rule of consistency to make these words conform to Christian theology instead of using these words for THEIR ORIGINAL concepts.

I think you make a big error this way.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear W. Lindsay Wheeler,

It seems to me that philosophers, human minds and words all have their limitations.

&#34;I tell you the truth,&#34; Jesus answered, &#34;before Abraham was born, I am!&#34;

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[matt]

Dear W. Lindsay Wheeler,

Regarding your posts, I think there may be some wiggle room for more clarification on the nature of souls, immortality, and the use of “words in their original meaning”.

I think that what M. C. S. is saying is totally consistent with the Tradition- the immortality of the soul is one not of nature but of grace. It is not an attribute by nature. It is a creature “done unto” by God. To quote Florovsky, “To say that ‘the soul is immortal’ would be for a Greek the same as to say ‘it is uncreated’ i.e. eternal and ‘divine’… Only that which had no beginning could last forever. Christians could not comply with this ‘philosophical’ assumption, as they believed in Creation, and therefore they had to deny ‘immortality (in the Greek meaning of the word)” [The ‘Immortality’ of the Soul, Collected works vol.3].

It is of little use to demand that words must be used in their original context. If that were the case, what would we really be saying in the Creed about homoousia? And what of the Logos of St John? Is he not baptizing a Greek philosophical term and enriching and deepening it for his readers? That is precisely the beauty of language- it adapts and evolves. Christian thought baptizes concepts and “makes them captive” for Christ’s truth. I understand what you mean when you write, “The Christians were not the first to use these terms. I think it a big error and against the Socratic rule of consistency to make these words conform to Christian theology instead of using these words for THEIR ORIGINAL concepts. I think you make a big error this way.” However, this is neither realistic from a linguistic point of view nor consistent with what I would identify as the Christian mind (not to mention that the ‘philosophers’ themselves changed the meaning of words to fit their concepts). Socratic rules of consistency can hardly be applied to the use of terms over a 2000+ year tradition that has spanned many cultures and languages. Just say “God” and there are as many concepts as there are people in every generation. That is partially the point of theology- to speak and adapt the gospel to each culture. When this is done, meanings of words need to be adapted as well. It is not as if Christians had to invent a new language that everyone who became Christian had to learn. Rather they reworked what each cultural tradition, both philosophically and artistically, already had.

I would strongly suggest that you read Jaroslav Pelikan’s “Christianity and Classical Culture” for some interesting material on this topic.

Matt Hubinger

[matt]

I also wanted to throw this into the thread regarding the statement that the Church Fathers are not infallible. True. However, are we then to trust Socrates, or Plato, or Hegel over them? Are they not capable of being our guides and collectively being nearly infallible? If the Holy Spirit really does give us life, and if this life is found in the Body of Christ, the Church, it would seem to me that the mind of the Christ, the mind of the Church, IS EXACTLY the patristic mind. You can debate infallibility, and no one argues that any single Father is, but am I really too far off the mark in what I am writing?

“We needed an Incarnate God, God put to death, that we might live.” St Gregory Nazianzus, Orat. 45, in S Pascha 28.&#41;

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

The human soul by its very nature is immortal. Socrates/Plato and Aristotle both intimitated that. The Body is made up of parts and death is the break down of the whole into parts. The soul is not made up of parts and there fore is deathless.

Look, Florovsky is a russian name I suppose. he is not an Englishman and doesn&#39;t know the English meaning.

Athanatos is used by Hesoid to describe the Greek gods. They were all &#39;born&#39;. They all had a beginning. You can not take a word from Classical Greek, change the meaning completely and then force all to obey the new meaning. That is absurd. If anybody read Hesoid and Homer and the other Greeks, and come upon the word Athanatos, right away one hits a road block because the &#34;new meaning&#34; doesn&#39;t fit the meaning of the Classical Greeks.

You are very wrong to change the meaning of the word.

Hesoid, Works and Days 135, Loeb pg 13, &#34;nor would they serve the immortals &#40;Athanatos&#41;.

Hesoid, 309 Loeb pg 27, &#34;Loved by the immortals &#40;athanatoisin&#41;&#34;

Hesoid, 335, loeb 27, &#34;sacrifice to the deathless ones &#40;athanatoisi&#41;&#34;.

goes on for pages 149, 155, 177, 187, 201. Where Athanatos is an adjective for the Greek Gods. We all know that the Greek Gods were BORN and were not &#34;Eternal&#34;.

I really do not understand your difficulty and why you need to change the meaning of words. This is soooo not Western thought. Do you really think that &#34;athanatos&#34; is a particularly Christian term?

Nor is this seeminly incessant need on your part to stay in somekind of ephemeral atmosphere in perpetual non definition which is not Western thought but eastern thought of Buddihism and Hinduism and Jewish thought patterns. It is not Greek thought patterns.

[matt]

W. Lindsay,

I see what difficulties you have with words and meanings and I sort of sympathize. Even so, if you apply your standard to the history of CHristian thought, then you are way off the mark (uh oh, is that using a greek word translated wrong?).

No one is arguing about what the words meant for Homor or Hesoid, etc. The only point is that the meaning of words change.

About Florovsky: He has a much stronger command of the English language than you would give him credit. You seem not to be familiar with him, but he was a true polyglot. He was a master with Greek as well. IF you would like, email me your address and I will send you a copy of his article on the "immortality" of the soul.

Are you a platonist or are you Orthodox in your thought? THey are not the same. THe whole meaning of Christianity is that God reveals Himself to us and therefore our philosophies need at times to step off. Plato et al go far enough with their natural philosophies, but what of the revelation? IF you are only arguing about the meaning of the word of immortal in greek, then you should consider that the Greek Fathers themselves disagree with you. Did they not read Greek? Are they not the Fathers?

ANd what was emphemeral or incessant about what I wrote? It seems you are stuck on the same point in spite of the Scriptural and patristic witness to the contrary. ANd what is so vague about Jewish thought patterns? WHere are you learning this?

MAtt

[matt]

Here is a link to the Florovsky article. I hope everyone can read his poor use of English. The Greek is transliterated by the webmaster, Florovsky actually could read Greek, believe it or not.

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/immortality_soul.htm

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Mr Wheeler and Matt,

It has been interesting to read your posts in this thread, made while I was away (rather slight in number, given, I assume, the technical difficulties with the system during the same period). Thank you both for your thoughts.

Mr Wheeler wrote:


The human soul by its very nature is immortal. Socrates/Plato and Aristotle both intimitated that.

And a host of the fathers deny it. Choose the ground on which you lay the foundation of your faith. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

The teaching of the Church is that the human soul is immortal only inasmuch as it participates in the immortality of God (who 'alone is holy, alone immortal...'). In the very clear exposition of Irenaeus, the soul imparts life to the body, 'but not its own life; rather, the life of the Spirit', by which he refers to the Holy Spirit. Immortality is the lot of the human person in any and all of its aspects (body, soul) only because God offers it by grace to that which participates in His own life.


The Body is made up of parts and death is the break down of the whole into parts. The soul is not made up of parts and there fore is deathless.

This is certainly the teaching of some of the Classical Greeks, and it made its way also into various episodes of Rensaissance thought and scholastic analysis. However, there is little in it that is central to a Christian anthropology.

Let us do keep in mind that 'the death of the soul' is a theme not left un-treated by various fathers.

As regarding the term 'athanatos' and a distinction between eternal and immortal: to claim that the classical interpretation of 'immortal' must be applied to Christian use of the term as a blanket and non-negotiable rule is simply untenable. Firstly, it is not the case that the term athanatos had uniform usage in the classical world. Its usage among the pre-Socratics, for example, is different than in some uses in Plato. Similarly with aionios, the usage of which varied greatly (even more than athanatos).

But this aside, the Christian vision of reality demanded a change in the language of reality, as much as in the interpretation of it. 'Immortal' meant something different to the Christians, who read the word in light of Christ the eternal God who had become man and claimed immortality in the defeat of death. The vision of immortality held by pagan worshippers or even philosophers, while (especially in the latter case) may not always have been entirely incorrect, had now to be seen in respect of this new revelation. When the eternal Son has become man and trampled down death in raising from the dead, the concept of 'immortality' takes on new meaning -- meaning it cannot have had, or which at least human intellects could not fully have discerned, prior to the witness of that event. Likewise, when the mortal flesh of created humanity was joined to the eternity of the uncreated Son, the very concept of being 'eternal' had to be re-fashioned in the Christian consciousness. To be joined to eternity through union with the Eternal was a new concept in theological thought, as the incarnation was a new event and new reality. To claim that we must continue to read these terms in light of their interpretation before the event of Christ, is to misunderstand the radicality of the incarnation.

The Christian Church, from almost its very beginnings, called God athanatos, 'immortal', for God had become man and 'dwelt among us'. And they referred to the human person as aionios, 'eternal', because human life had been taken up into the divine. When the Church came to explain and define these terms, it was (and is) insistent that neither quality of existence belongs to the human person naturally (the body is dust, and the soul too a created, finite entity, as the fathers teach explicitly). But both are given to man through the incarnational reality of God's presence in humanity.

INXC, Matthew

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

None of what you say is in plain english. It is not clear, straightforward. It is like you are talking in completely different language and is very un-Greek. I can read Plato and understand the concepts given and understand the meaning of what is said.

i can understand nothing previously written. Do i need a &#34;Da Vinci Code&#34; do understand this? It has twists and turns and double meanings and this and that--literally impossible to read.

Philosophy is not theology. Socrates split philosophy from theology and what you are doing is re-mixing philosophy back into theology. that can not be the case. Socrates is founder and foundation of Western culture and thought. Do away with Socrates and you have stepped back into the East.

My opinion is that you are sooo wrapped up in theological mumbo-jumbo that you can&#39;t speak a clear sentence with clear concise thought.

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

Proof that Humans had immortality before Christ.

Genesis, &#34;In the beginning&#34;, God created Adam and Eve WITH NO DEATH. Adam and Eve were IMMORTAL. Comprende? They had beginning and NO END. If Adam and Eve, did not eat of the apple, they would have never experienced death.

If you know your theology and Bible, Death only came from AFTER eating of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil.

Humans were always immortal. What Jesus did was RESTORE the life/communion w/God.

Otherwise, we would be spending all of eternity in Hell, &#34;The second death&#34;. Jesus saved us from the second death. The first death is punishment of all mankind for the fall. Jesus saves us from the second death, i.e. eternal seperation from God.

[Owen Jones]

Plato/Socrates did not say that the human soul was immortal. Prior to Socrates, the Greek concept of mortals and immortals was derived from Homeric myth. There were two types of beings, mortals and immortals, and the immortals raged war among themselves in the heavens, and sometimes walked among us in the physical world as their warfare spilled over into human affairs, which is the Homeric explanation for both heroic and evil behavior and events on earth.

In the Symposium, Socrates says that humans are neither mortal nor immortal but in between, and depending on our virtue, we move in one direction or the other. He says he received this knowledge from a divine oracle.

This is not inconsistent with the Patristic anthropological understanding, which says thatthe believer inhabits an intermediate realm between earth and heaven, and that the liturgy both symbolizes and embodies this intermediate realm.

Also, the term theology was first coined by Plato and has an apophatic connotation. He said that the sophists teach that either there is no god, or that if there is a god, it cannot save us, or even if he has the power to save us, he can be bribed with sacrifices. Plato said that none of these could be true of God and he called this conclusion theology.

I think the old philosophy vs. Christianity debate is very unfruitful. The terms tend to be used by people very simplistically and combatively without any real attunement to their meaning.

There is only one reality and philosophy and Christianity are two approaches to that same reality which are not the same but which at the same time are not intended to refute each other. In philosophy, the greater discovery is the structure of consciousness. In Christianity, the greater discovery is the structure of the Trinity. But in neither case to the detriment of the other. Since in Plato&#39;s work there is a movement away from many gods to one god. And in Christianity there is a differentiation in anthropology in that every man now has the capacity to become a divine exemplar.

Finally, I would argue that this forum is not helped by second person, zealous condemnations.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

A few thoughts on what has been said above. Firstly, what is language about if not the reality of life and the universe around us. It is not simply a set of rigid rules on usage or set meanings; it is a way of explaining and intellectually interacting with the world God has created and in which we exist. It is dynamic and changing, because our understanding of the world, of God, of our selves and one another is also dynamic and changing. There is a constant temptation, especially in philosophical and theological discussions, to allow a given word&#39;s meaning at one or another point in history &#40;or even over a substantial portion of history in continuity&#41; itself to define the reality that words seek to convey. This is always a grave danger. We may think of the centuries of fighting over the terms hypostasis, ousia and so on, to help in realising that the use of terms to dictate reality is in fact precisely the wrong approach: it is the reality that dictates the meaning of terms.

Secondly, to our dear Mr Wheeler &#40;and please, do let me know if you prefer some other salutation; I never like to presume too much informality!&#41;, I am sorry if what I wrote above does not seem to you to be in plain English. But keep in mind that in the Christian faith we are confronted first and foremost with mystery. This does not mean it cannot be talked about, but that talk and terminology will be of the sort that explores the mystery, rather than tries to eliminate it by reducing the mystery to nothingness.

In theological language, we must always start with the incarnation. You wrote concerning my previous post, &#34;I can understand nothing previously written. Do i need a &#34;Da Vinci Code&#34; do understand this? It has twists and turns and double meanings and this and that--literally impossible to read.&#34; I am sorry that you feel this way, and perhaps I use a style of English that you find strange; though I don&#39;t feel I presented things in any more complicated or twisted a form than need be. There is no twisting or turning involved in saying that the theology of Christ&#39;s life must lie behind our use of the terms relevant to it.

In Christian language, all terms find their meaning in Christ. We cannot understand what &#39;immortal&#39; means apart from Christ, because in His life, Christ radically changed the nature of immortality. It may well have had a clearly defined meaning prior to the incarnation; but in the incarnation new meaning was imbued in the term. It is not possible, post-incarnationem, to define the term without reference to that event and all that it says for the intersection of eternity and time, death and life. Immortality is defined for Christians by looking to the incarnation, cross and the resurrection. The philosophers may help us understand it &#40;and they do, greatly -- pace Owen&#41;; but without reading the word through the incarnation, cross and resurrection, it will never be understood in a Christian sense. This may appear &#39;theological mumbo-jumbo&#39; to some, but it is the only Christian approach to meaning.

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

From a previous post in this thread:


If you know your theology and Bible, Death only came from AFTER eating of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil.

True, but never has the Orthodox Church taught that this means immortality was the natural property of Adam and Eve. That which was disrupted in the first sin was the communion with God which brought immortality to them. That which Christ restored is this same communion -- which again brings immortality to the mortal.

That Adam and Eve somehow were immortal as a property of their own being goes against the thought of the Church from its first days.

INXC, Matthew

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

M. C. Steenberg,

You first state &#34;True&#34; and then completely rebute it in the following phrase. God said death will only come with the eating. So, What did the humans have? What is the one English word that describes what they, Adam and Eve had?

They walked with God everyday. When was it going to end?

And to MC. Steenberg, When you say everything changes that language is &#39;Dynamic and Changing&#34; that is precisely what Socrates was fighting against----Language and words were constantly being changed in his society and that he argued for precise definitions. Half of the Socratic dialogues are made up of asking for definitions. I am sorry I have read the book, &#34;Hebrew thought compared to Greek&#34; by Thorleif Bowman. You have described &#34;Hebrew&#34; thought but it isn&#39;t Greek thought. Greek Thought is not dynamic nor changing.

[Owen Jones]

My understanding is that immortality is the natural state of man, but the consequence of sin &#40;an unnatural thing&#41; is death &#40;an unnatural state&#41;. And so now man has to deal with the unnatural problem of death, which is solved by God for us through his intervention. So, we are neither mortal nor immortal in any absolute sense but our true destiny is that state in which we were created: immortality, both of soul and body. But I am open to being proven wrong by the Fathers on this. Often the writings of the Fathers shock us since we have absorbed a lot of stuff from our Church education or reading that is quite different.

[Mark]

Somebody up above wrote:

When you say everything changes that language is &#39;Dynamic and Changing&#34; that is precisely what Socrates was fighting against ..... You have described &#34;Hebrew&#34; thought but it isn&#39;t Greek thought. Greek Thought is not dynamic nor changing.

This is nonsense. It is completely inaccurate.

Mark

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

Re: The question of immortality, death, creation and sin.

On this, Owen wrote above:


My understanding is that immortality is the natural state of man, but the consequence of sin (an unnatural thing) is death (an unnatural state). And so now man has to deal with the unnatural problem of death, which is solved by God for us through his intervention.

This seems to me very much in line with patristic thought, though I have put in boldface font a phrase, 'natural state', that seems to me very loaded and the point of much dispute in Church history. What does it mean for immortality to be man's 'natural state'? All the fathers agree that immortality is that condition of existence in which Adam and Eve first lived in the garden -- that if nothing had happened to interrupt or alter the economy, humanity would not have become mortal. The variances of opinion come over whether this condition of existence was a property 'internal' or 'external' to man. Were Adam and Eve immortal in Eden because, as a property of their human nature immortality was part of their constitution? Or was it that they participated in an uncorrupted union/communion with God who grants to their inherently mortal frame that which is eternal?

Both responses have been put forward by the fathers. One particular interpretation you mention in your post:


So, we are neither mortal nor immortal in any absolute sense but our true destiny is that state in which we were created: immortality, both of soul and body.

This is in fact precisely the reading of Theophilus of Antioch in the second century. His famous comment in this regard was, 'For man had been made a middle nature, neither wholly mortal, nor altogether immortal, but capable of either'. His point in context is that man has no proper ('natural') claim to immortality, only to a constitution capable of immortality. That divine attribute itself comes only in union of the human person with the eternal God.

Irenaeus is more emphatic that the human person both (a) is naturally mortal, since it is material, and always was naturally mortal, even when first created in Eden before sin; and (b) would nonetheless not have died if sin had not entered the economy, since without sin humanity lives in communion with God, which 'raises the corruptible to incorruption, and grants eternity to the temporal'.

In this light, it is possible to give a patristic answer to a comment made by Mr Wheeler as part of an exchange above:


Mr Wheeler: If you know your theology and Bible, Death only came from AFTER eating of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil.

Matthew: True, but never has the Orthodox Church taught that this means immortality was the natural property of Adam and Eve. That which was disrupted in the first sin was the communion with God which brought immortality to them. That which Christ restored is this same communion -- which again brings immortality to the mortal.

Mr Wheeler: You first state "True" and then completely rebute it in the following phrase. God said death will only come with the eating. So, What did the humans have? What is the one English word that describes what they, Adam and Eve had? [...] They walked with God everyday. When was it going to end?

The whole point is that participating in immortality and naturally possessing immortality are very different things. For humanity originally to have participated in immortality is not to claim that they naturally possessed it -- a possibility explicitly ruled out by a 'purely biblical' theology as much as by an ecclesial theology. Only God is immortal. This is a fundamental truth of Christian anthropology. Pace to various philosophers who describe the soul as itself immortal; such a reading, designed to account for the element in man which transcends the temporality of the mortal body, has been clarified by the Church. The immortality which the soul brings to the body, which it offers to the human person, is the immortality of God.

INXC, Matthew

[Gilbert Gandenberger]

I appreciate what Mr. Steenberg has noted here. My concern in all of this is that in too much philosophical thought, esp. &#34;western&#34;, what is considered &#34;natural&#34; to humanity is meant what is man like apart from God. What is humanity in and of itself - and that is definitely not an Orthodox Christian way to even pose a question. It is non-sensical from the start. If we do not guard our thoughts, though, we can be tempted to try to think in this way, to the destruction of any logic from that thought forward.

The Holy Spirit is celebrated in the Nicene creed as &#34;the Lord and Giver of Life&#34;, and we declare & confess that the Father of light is the giver of all good gifts. How can we conceive of &#34;immortality&#34; as something that could possibly have any meaning separate from our relationship with God?

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

M. C. Steenberg writes:


The variances of opinion come over whether this condition of existence was a property 'internal' or 'external' to man. Were Adam and Eve immortal in Eden because, as a property of their human nature immortality was part of their constitution? Or was it that they participated in an uncorrupted union/communion with God who grants to their inherently mortal frame that which is eternal?

Something that is simple is just made confusing by Mr. Steenberg. Do things have to be so complicated as now to parse things into "internal" or "external". Who the heck thought up this? Is this really necessary?

There is a philosophical problem here. Do not the characteristics of a thing inhere in itself or are they externally derive? Does the life force of a dog exist outside itself?

I mean who is muddying the waters turning a simple statement into some kind of mumbo-jumbo esoteric gobblygook. Is plain english too tough for Orthodox people? Must everything be converted to gargantuan problems of inticrate Byzantine morass of legality?

God is not "only" immortal. It is an adjective BUT IS NOT THE ESSENCE of God. God, in essence, is ETERNAL. One, in human language, can apply immortal to the Christian God as an adjective but the this word is NOT a COMPLETE decription of the Christian god. The word "immortal" is not a "complete" meaning of the term of the Christian God. It is of the pagan Greek and Roman Gods. One can say that Jesus is deathless, that God the Father is deathless, i.e. immortal. But Eternal is a complete word that describes the Christian God.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Mr. Wheeler,

Babylon,located in Babylonia or Chaldea means confusion. Matthew Steenbergs words are logical, reasonable and understandable hence they are not the bricks which are building a Tower of Babel.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[James H.]

Mr. Wheeler,

I really suggest you take into account Mr. Steenberg&#39;s responses to your inquiry. He really does know what he&#39;s talking about. I am not telling you just to consider what he is saying because he is the all-powerful moderator, but because he has demonstrated his point in this thread in a very logical and clear way. Usually this stuff goes over my head, but I must say that Mr. Steenberg has stated his case in a very clear and concise way that makes sense to me and from which I have learned.

Also, he has been very cordial and patient with you. Regardless of who is correct, I would think it more prudent for you to be as polite and respectful to him &#40;and other members&#41; as he has been to you. There is a way to hold a discussion &#40;where two parties disagree&#41; without insulting the other&#39;s integrity &#40;&#34;is this English?&#34; &#34;gobblygook&#34; and other such references to Mr. Steenberg&#39;s well thought-out and considerate responses&#41;. I think if you just took the time to consider what Mr. Steenberg and others have posted, you might not be so impatient with them.

Monachos is made up a many people of many diverse points of view, but in this thread everyone has argued the opposite position from yourself. Now, that doesn&#39;t mean you have to change your mind, but doesn&#39;t it at least tell you that perhaps there is some kind of sense to what Mr. Steenberg and others here have been writing?

In Christ,

James

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

Orthodoxy has its problems and it is clear that one of these problems that prevents it growth and acceptance is the wrapping of theological terms in some byzantine theological mumbo-jumbo.

Mr. Steenberg <font color="0000ff">This is in fact precisely the reading of Theophilus of Antioch in the second century. His famous comment in this regard was, &#39;For man had been made a middle nature, neither wholly mortal, nor altogether immortal, but capable of either&#39;. His point in context is that man has no proper &#40;&#39;natural&#39;&#41; claim to immortality, only to a constitution capable of immortality. That divine attribute itself comes only in union of the human person with the eternal God.</font>

Socrates: &#34;Is this the truth?&#34;

Steenberg: <font color="0000ff">Yes</font>

Socrates: Does not the Devil and his minions have existence for eternity in the depths of hell?

Steenberg: <font color="0000ff">Yes</font>

Socrates: This means that they are immortal, right?

Steenberg: <font color="0000ff">UMMM, UHHH,....</font>

Socrates:&#34;You just said earlier that God is necessary to make a human live forever so How does the devil, and his minions live forever in Hell? So the existence of the devil and his angels in Hell depend on the &#34;That divine attribute itself comes only in union of the human person with the eternal God&#34;? So, let me get this straight, this means that in order for evil people and evil angels to exist for eternity in the depths of hell, God must support their existence in hell?

Steenberg: <font color="0000ff">Umm...uhhh. Your are trapping me in and trying to fool me.</font>

Socrates: No, I am using your definition to apply to all circumstances that have the requirement of deathlessness. I am having a difficulty understanding your defintion as applied to the souls in hell. I thought Hell is a place where there is no God. God is not in Hell. Hell is a place of evil. It is where evil is banished to. So, please, Mr. Steenberg, please give me a definition of immortality that will fit both the condition of Paradise, Heaven, Hell. Does God have union with the souls in Hell in order for them to be immortal?

[Herman Blaydoe]

Creation /was/is NOT a moment in time, it is continuous. The next second does not exist unless God wills it to do so.

[James H.]

Wow, Mr. Wheeler, if you are going to be that disrespectful, that is your choice, but please take it into private then with Mr. Steenberg. If you want to keep this debate in public then I suggest you think of more appropriate ways of expressing yourself. People disagree all the time in Monachos. The problem does not lie in the disagreement &#40;that&#39;s how we learn or at least come to understand each other&#41; but it lies rather in the attitude we decide to deal with the disagreement in question.

Now, Mr. Steenberg is a big boy and I am sure he doesn&#39;t lose sleep over your insults &#40;that he were some kind of grunting monkey that doesn&#39;t know how to add and substract&#41;, but they do bother me since they come into my own personal e-mail account.

Let&#39;s remember what Monachos is for and who we are.

Brother in Christ,

James

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Mr Wheeler,

I was away when this thread began but going back to Matthew's post #560 we can read, "The whole point is that participating in immortality and naturally possessing immortality are very different things. For humanity originally to have participated in immortality is not to claim that they naturally possessed it -- a possibility explicitly ruled out by a 'purely biblical' theology as much as by an ecclesial theology. Only God is immortal. This is a fundamental truth of Christian anthropology. Pace to various philosophers who describe the soul as itself immortal; such a reading, designed to account for the element in man which transcends the temporality of the mortal body, has been clarified by the Church. The immortality which the soul brings to the body, which it offers to the human person, is the immortality of God."

The point of this seems quite Orthodox & clear without any "byzantine theological mumbo-jumbo" in it. Let me put it in my own way- if we are naturally immortal- then what need have we of God?

I think perhaps you are confusing immortality as a temporal concept and immortality as eternal life in Christ. All creatures will now abide into the future (and even then they are not pre-eternal as God is -or as Origen taught & was condemned for.)

However immortality as true Life in Christ can only be found by free will. In both senses immortality is a gift of God; but the former is inherent to being (which now always will be) while the latter is contingent on free will.

Hell does not negate any of this. It does not come from God's gift of immortality (God forbid!) but rather from the mis-use of free will by the creature (demonic or human).
Finally I am reminded of a pilgrimage I once made to the Holy Mt of Athos. When I visited the church of the Great Lavra I was most struck by how on the outside wall at the church entrance were frescoes of various Greek philosophers. The symbolism seemed clear: some may have spoken words of truth. But this was only in-so-far as they were searching (even unknowingly) for Christ as the Truth. To know fully Socrates must enter the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[matt]

Mr Wheeler,
In all love of God, if we are here discussing issues that pertain to our religion, perhaps we should seek to do so in a more humble manner.

[M.C. Steenberg]

God is not in hell? This is the first I have heard of such a thought.

&#34;For lo, should I descend to the depths of hell, still Thou art with me...&#39;&#34;

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Fr Raphael,

I enjoyed reading your re-phrasing of my earlier thoughts, put ‘in your own way’ -- far better than my own. I was also struck by your description of the four philosophers painted outside the katholikon at the Lavra. The same is true of the frescoes on the entrance gate to Vatopaidiou on the other end of the peninsula.

My dear Mr Wheeler, you are undoubtedly correct in stating that I manage to muddle and confuse things in attempting to describe them. But we cannot allow ourselves to destroy the mystery of our faith by being commanded or forced to render it a non-mystery in language that does not suit it. We may speak poorly of what we learn and know, but we cannot permit ourselves knowingly to speak falsely about what is true.

Certain principles of the Christian faith are not ‘up for bargaining’. First is that God alone is eternal, and God alone immortal. While philosophers &#40;and others&#41; may, within certain contexts and arguments, define these terms in manners that might question this basic truth of the faith, the very language and worshipping life of the Church demands them. One must choose the foundation on which he builds his faith. I do not say this to suggest that the philosophers should be dismissed. Certainly they should not. But our ultimate reference point is the Church, nothing else.

The second principle is one that at first seems to contradict the first, namely, that humanity as the image-bearing creation of God, itself becomes, in union with Him, immortal and participates in His eternity. That we can hold these two principles in harmony is right at the heart of the mystery of our faith. There is nothing, nothing whatever in the human formation, that is either eternal or immortal. Body or soul -- it makes no difference. Yet the mystery of salvation is precisely this: the mortal becomes immortal. The temporal becomes eternal. Death is transformed to life.

If, in the Christian conception of humanity, we then speak of persons as ‘immortal’, we do so only inasmuch as they are united to God. They are not immortal naturally, but immortal by participation in the eternal life of the Immortal One. Never, at any point in the history of salvation, does immortality become the lot of the human person naturally. It is always, now as much as in the kingdom, ours only through our union with God. If ever the union is broken, the gift also is rended from us. As one of the fathers has written, ‘Just as the separation of the soul from the body is the death of the body, so the separation of the soul from God is the death of the soul’. Nothing in us, nothing of us, is eternal apart from the grace of God that gives us this life. And, to bring up again the matter of hell, this is precisely what makes the eternity of hell so horrific: God is there, as psalm after psalm reminds us.

I do not believe the above is unapproachably complicated. It is a mystery, and so certain categories of logical analysis will fumble round it &#40;e.g. too blocked a fabric of Socratic dialogue&#41;; but it is not an incomprehensible mystery. The concepts are simple and straightforward -- it is the realities they preach that is mysterious.

INXC, Matthew

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

I was brought up on Aristotelian-Thomist philosophy of the Roman Catholic Church. When I read on Christian disputes in the Orthodox journals on Roman Catholicism, Orthodox writers reference this methodology of mystery, incomprehensiblity, and just plain obfuscation.

I am a simple country boy. you call a spade a spade. This is not so in Orthodox thought. A spade is not a spade. An ephemerial square object sits up against some wall, it may be used as a digging implement so far as the user may want to use it as such but only if God allows him but on the other hand it may not be so. We can not tell, Scripture has closed the door to this thought so the Roman Catholic Church is very wrong when it says a spade is a spade.

This is what every argument digresses to in the Orthodox church and in this thread. Nothing is simple. One can not say &#39;A&#39; is &#39;A&#39;.

I can understand the Oxford English dictionary better than anything provided here.

What is up with you people? I am trying to wrap my mind around this enigma of Orthodox obfuscation of every point. What is going on here?

I understand Roman Catholic theology. It is almost impossible to understand anything in the Orthodox church.

We live in the English world. The English world is formed by classical literature which you Orthodox have destroyed and refuse to read or understand. The english word &#34;immortal&#34; is not your meaning. There is no understanding between you foreigners that have gone around burning classical works and English/American culture.

I&#39;m trying to understand why Orthodoxy is not taking off in America and now I see why.

[James H.]

Mr. Wheeler,

As has already been mentioned here, the theology of the apophatic is central to Orthodox thought and can be found among the earliest Church Fathers. You say an &#39;A&#39; is an &#39;A&#39;. True, because an &#39;A&#39; is a human creation, so we can indeed &#34;wrap our mind around it.&#34; But in Eastern thought, even the word &#34;God&#34; does not begin to describe God because he is not our creation. You wish to &#34;wrap your mind around&#34; the explanation of God, but the truth is that all we can say is that which has been revealed to us, and we cannot act like that is the end of the story or that this even begins to &#34;explain&#34; God to us. Before you criticize Eastern thought, remember that Christianity is a religion that sprung from the Middle East and the earlist Church Fathers spoke in this same &#34;mumbo-jumbo&#34; you read here in this thread &#40;for that&#39;s all any of this is, hopefully, a re-hash of the same stuff Eastern Fathers have been saying for years&#41;. Mr. Wheeler, Orthodoxy is Eastern and cannot pretend to be Western. To do so would be like an English Speaker trying to improve his grammar using a Russian textbook. It just doesn&#39;t work.

Sir, I get the feeling that you are Catholic. No one here is trying to persuade you do be otherwise. But please understand that this is an Orthodox forum and is meant to defend and learn about Orthodox &#40;i.e. eastern&#41; thought and theology.

God bless,

James

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Responding to the last post of James H (#56): It is also the case that Christianity in its Orthodox shape fully inspired the West until the gradual schism of the Middle Ages. Until this time Orthodoxy in the West had its own liturgical practice but a theology and ascesis fully in harmony with the East while at the same time having its own uniqueness. (eg Irish monks who in many ways followed more faithfully the exact model of the Egyptian desert Fathers while also adding the notion of constant pilgrimage or travelling.). As far as the 'mystical' element goes one has only to read the homilies of St Gregory the Great or the scriptural commentaries of St Ambrose of Milan to see that this element was as much present in their manner of presentation as in any father of the East. In fact when one compares these with the presentation of a St Basil the Great one can see that in the West at this time there was a heavy use of allegory which I believe carried through for a number of centuries in the West. In other words we should question the often heard assertion that the West was always dry & rational while the East was 'mystical'. Perhaps some of this info is of use for Mr Wheeler.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Herman Blaydoe]

What is up with you people? I am trying to wrap my mind around this enigma of Orthodox obfuscation of every point. What is going on here?

...to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness?

How about...but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.


I understand Roman Catholic theology. It is almost impossible to understand anything in the Orthodox church

And he who only understands a hammer may find it impossible to understand a screwdriver.


We live in the English world. The English world is formed by classical literature which you Orthodox have destroyed and refuse to read or understand.

Interesting thought/concept, although your world seems distressingly small. You really should investigate the possibility of expanding your horizons beyond the "English" world. Just who, exactly, is refusing to understand here, really?

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." -- Hamlet, Act I, Scene V seems to apply here. That is classical English literature by the way...

[Cyril Shartz]

Thank you, Fr. Raphael, for pointing out that &#34;we should question the often heard assertion that the West was always dry & rational while the East was &#39;mystical.&#39;&#34; If I may add my two cents&#39; worth &#40;or perhaps less&#41;, it&#39;s good to remember that Eastern Orthodox thought is not exclusively apophatic--we do, after all have doctrines which we affirm quite emphatically--but rather that it involves a balance and a tension between cataphatic and apophatic approaches, with the apophatic approach or the via negativa serving as a corrective to the tendency &#40;eastern or western&#41; to pretend that we can &#34;wrap our minds around&#34; matters that have not, in fact, been revealed to us.

[Herman Blaydoe]

There is no understanding between you foreigners that have gone around burning classical works and English/American culture.

What on earth are you talking about? I, for one, am a native-born Hoosier, and I have not burned any classical works that I am aware of, probably read as many or more of them than you have. I suspect that Mr. Steenberg can tell you more than a thing or two about English culture. Who is the "foreigner" here?

Since when does "English" or "American" define the totality of culture or understanding?

[Cyril Shartz]

Just for the record, I, too, am an American, citizen by birth, born and raised in the United States, a convert to Orthodoxy, and have not burned any classical works &#40;meaning Greek and Roman, I suppose&#41; or English or American literature. I majored in Classics in university and love classical literature as much as ever. I think I can fairly claim to be innocent of the accusation that I have either destroyed such works or refused to read them or understand them.

It&#39;s probably worth reminding everyone &#40;in case anyone has forgotten&#41; that much of pagan Greek literature was made known to the west when Byzantine scholars &#40;i.e., Eastern Orthodox Christians&#41; brought their libraries with them to Italy when they escaped from the Turks. Far from destroying it, they preserved it.

[Arsenios]

Lindsay writes:

&#62; I was brought up on Aristotelian-Thomist philosophy of the Roman Catholic Church... [A person should] call a spade a spade... This is not so in Orthodox thought... What is up with you people?

Paul tells us that the mature in the faith hold the mystery of the Faith in a pure conscience... And that Christianity is foolishness to the world... And that &#34;a man he knew&#34; [himself] was taken up to the third heaven, and &#39;saw&#39; things of which it is not lawful to speak.&#34;

Now Paul was a plain ol&#39; country boy too - And he did indeed talk of his tribulations, as if they mattered, calling his efforts in that regard the ravings of a madman, but just to silence critics...

If you want to reduce your faith to philosophy, you can stick to Aristotle and Aquinas, and the faith will be foolishness to you... But to us who are called to her, Orthodox Christianity is Life... And to those who are not, She is foolishness...

&#62; I am trying to wrap my mind around this enigma of Orthodox obfuscation of every point.

We see the words of scripture, and indeed words themselves, as but turning us toward the Mystery of the Faith, which is received and held in a pure conscience, and not in a well informed logical intellective process. Faith informs logical methodology, and is not determined by it...

And we are a people of faith and prayer and fasting... We are still the Church the Roman Church once was, before the great schism... Pope John-Paul calls us his missing lung, the &#34;primitive&#34; Church - Rome used to be primitive too...

&#62; I understand Roman Catholic theology. It is almost impossible to understand anything in the Orthodox church.

Our faith is entered as a Mystery, and our understanding in no way defines it...

&#62; The english word &#34;immortal&#34; is not your meaning. There is no understanding between you foreigners that have gone around burning classical works and English/American culture.

I did my thesis on Joseph Owens&#39; Doctoral Thesis, &#34;The Concept of Being in the Aristotelian Metaphysics&#34; from the Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies in Toronto Canada - I was an athiest Ayn Rand Epistemologist... I SOoooo understand your chagrin!!

You need to set ALL of what you THINK you know and understand aside, and enter, in epistemological and intellectual humility, into the primitive faith of our Holy Fathers...

Repentance is the &#34;epistemological&#34; prerequisite to theological knowledge. [&#34;Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see/know God.&#34;]

God is not known in any syllogistic process... He is known in the creation of that process - The nous [mind, in its originative and archaic meaning], and not the intellect...

&#62; I&#39;m trying to understand why Orthodoxy is not taking off in America and now I see why.

You just about have to be called to Her, or encounter one of her saints, and then respond to the power of the signs of faith that you meet up with there, as many called to Christ through Paul did...

God bless you, my brother!

You are in my prayers!

Arsenios

[Owen Jones]

There is nothing wrong with employing logical syllogisms in theological reasoning. What this recent thread does show, however, is a particular problem in Roman Catholic thought, even among very brilliant, well-read RC&#39;s. It is grounded in a kind of medieval philosophical fundamentalism in which every tenet of theology had to conform to Aristotle&#39;s teachings in the physical sciences. This hardening of theological symbols into scientific proofs was disastrous, because physical scientists have proven many of Aristotle&#39;s material science to be mistaken. In fact, this debate was so heated even in Thomas&#39;s own day that it led to major theological battles. Generally speaking, the Thomistic arguments won out, leading to the disaster known as &#34;the Enlightenment,&#34; in which all Roman Catholic thought was called into question by a combination of Newtonian physics and Kant&#39;s Critique of Pure Reason.

Sadly, even brilliant, well-read Roman CAtholics are unfamiliar with the 1,000 years of intellectual history of their own Church. When one does not make allowances for mystery, the unknowable, but also the development of the aesthetic basis of theological reasoning, one must become a fundamentalist in order to preserve theological truth, and therefore of necessity must adopt an unscientific and defensive posture intellectually. Obviously, Christian theology cannot stand against the physical sciences. They cannot contradict each other. So bad science, and bad philosophy produces bad theology.

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

Like Mr. Owen, what scientific achievements of science, medicine, physics, biology ever came out of the Orthodox world? NOOOOTHING. It was precisely the writings of Aristotle that produced Galileo and Newton and Copercunicus. All of them launched their intellectual investigations from a starting point of Aristotle.

Maybe you should read The Closing of the Western Mind, The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Resaon by Charles Freeman where the Orthodox church closed the philosophical schools in Athens. If there is ever a mark of irrationalism, that is it.

Let&#39;s not forget what faith is----Faith is a certainity of things not seen. So Faith is a type of KNOWLEDGE.

Sorry, The Classical Greeks never thought themselves Eastern!!!!! They though themselves the first Westerners ever so different from the effeminate barbarians of the EAST. Classical Greeks saw that they were very different from other people. Every Classical Scholar, esp. Edith Hamilton, saw them as the first Westerners. NOT Easterners. Plato and Aristotle were not Easterners. Their thought is masculine not feminine, not eastern. Eastern thought is feminine and syncretic. Western thought is Logical, masculine and in Black and White.

Socialism and communism are syncretic thought of the east. Hinduism is syncretic. Western Christianity is opposite of that.


When Apostolos Makrakis writes his tome of Orthodox theology he makes no reference at all to Socrates or Aristotle. He wants to make a &#34;new&#34; philosophy. Whenever someone divorces from the foundation, like the enlightenment which produces the French Revolution. A tearing down of the Old Order. That is not Greek thought.

If you think that Christianity is an &#34;Eastern&#34; thing, I believe you are sadly mistaken.

The HS prevented ST. Paul from going east and made him go WEST.

[Owen Jones]

On the other hand, if one is a Platonist, one cannot possibly be a Roman Catholic!!!! Which just shows that this thread has become an exercise in }reductio ad absurdum.

It&#39;s true that there is a mythology circulating that Orthodox Christianity is an &#34;Eastern&#34; religion, and that there is something fundamentally wrong with &#34;Western&#34; thought. It&#39;s best to avoid trendy cant such as this.

I think I will sign on a Roman Catholic site and begin to chastise them all for the sack of Constantinople!!!!}

[Herman Blaydoe]

Well, now that the brilliant Mr. Wheeler has shown us the error of our ways, perhaps he can complete our journey to enlightenment by explaining to us WHICH Western Christianity he is referring to, that we may all rush over to join?

[matt]

Mr Wheeler,
It seems that it is now about time for you to admit that you would have preferred the Logos to become incarnate of a Greek Helen rather than a Jewish Mariam, since that was too non-western. Imagine the nerve of God to put His Son in such a jerkwater province! It’s no wonder he didn’t live past 30, since the Jews who were against him couldn’t really understand reality. And his poor disciples, always wondering about who is better than who rather than approaching the situation logically &#40;something they had no use for&#41;. But thankfully ol’ St. Paul rescued Christianity from the backwards Jews, who don’t really show an aptitude for critical thought, by giving it to the westerners. I always had the suspicion that Hellenized-Paul was the real founder of Christianity. No way that Jews could have had a hand in it! You should really write a book about your newfound discoveries. And to think that scholars had debunked your thesis decades ago…Publishers should be knocking on your door.

[Gilbert Gandenberger]

Humility and peace, grace and wisdom. St. Thomas would not agree with much of what was written here. He believed firmly in the mystery of the reality of God. He knew and loved the great Fathers of our church.

As Father Averky would have said, I believe, too many words!

[M.C. Steenberg]

My friends,

Let us remember the commandment to love one another, both as in the mandates of Christ, and of this discussion forum. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Brotherly love is more important than right knowledge. Please let us carry on our discussions in this light.

INXC, Matthew

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

My viewpoint is that I like every church, Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox. There is a lot of pride in each church. This pride blinds us to our errors.

Jesus also confronted the Pharisees of his time. He had no compunction about harrassing and vilifing their uppitiness. He called them every name in the book. He expected better from them. He knocked them off their pedestals. He called his fellow brethren, &#34;Your father is the devil&#34;. he called the Phonecian woman by inference a &#34;dog&#34;. All Gentiles are dogs. I am a dog.

What is the will of Jesus? Jesus said, &#34;That all may be one&#34;. The unity of christians is the paramount idea.

When the Orthodox attack Roman Catholicism, and it has many such problems, the Orthodox position is that all must conform to this apophatic theological system of the Orthodox to be valid. The eastern Orthodox demand, yes, demand that all must follow this system of theology.

I must point out to the millions of Protestant Christians and Roman Catholic Christians, the definition of immortality and eternity is not defined by your meaning and they will never accept en masse. It is a foreign thought process.

If this trend continues, there will be no ecumenism between Latin/Western Christianity and this &#34;Eastern&#34; Christianity.

It is not the Romans who are making it difficult it is the Orthodox with this byzantine thinking.

NO protestant or Catholic theologian would ever think that immortality now must be parsed into &#34;Is it external or internal immortality?&#34; That question is not asked. Does not need to be asked. Does not need to even exist. You are making it more difficult than it really is.

More than half the problem is misperceptions and wrong concepts. I have been reading classical works all my life and have never heard the Greeks called &#34;Easterners&#34;. Yet, modern Greeks and the Greek Orthodox church and its theologians are busying calling themselves &#34;eastern&#34; as opposed to the stupid and idiot westerners and think that &#34;eastern&#34; is the way to go. I can&#39;t understand where or how they got this term if they read their classical works which they don&#39;t and so the misperception exists and has become a stumbling block.

Immortality and what it means is very simple Any person reading Genesis can get the meaning of it. Many protestant ministers do and preach correctly without this confusing apophatic theology. Common people understand their concepts and definition of immortality and the need for salvation in Jesus Christ.

And just so there is no confusion here again,

Let me point out the Book of Wisdom 2.23-24

&#34;For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Nevertheless through envy of the devil came death into the world: and they that are of his side do find it.&#34;

The Greek is &#34;aftharsia&#34; which means immortal or incorruptible. &#34;ftharsia&#34; means mortal.

The Book of Wisdom is scripture and is the Word of God. It is also clear that immortality and eternity are different meanings for this writer. Our immortality is an image of God&#39;s eternity. If these words mean the same thing then either one of these words would have been used twice instead of once. God is eternal and Men are immortal. Angels are immortal. The trinity is eternal.