Surd evil

[Rev. Dean M. Bell]

Would anyone in the group be familiar with the term "surd evil" as an explanation to "tragedies" that seem totally unexplanable to us.

[Vasilis Kirikos]

> Add to that, I too have a question. Actually I have two questions that have been hunting me. 1) What is the Orthodox Church's stand on predestination? I personally find such a notion next to impossible to accept. 2) Also, how is one supposed to interpret the passage in the Bible from the book of Saint John 19: 25-27 "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, *and his mother's sister,* Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." The Virgin Mary had a sister? I thought that her parents were old and had no other children when the Holy Mother was born. Vasilis

> [Delete this line and type your message here]

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

The information below is from the linked Greek Orthodox Archdiocese website (http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article9174.asp). This should answer your second question, Vasilis.

"It seems beyond reasonable dispute that the Mary at the Cross in St. Matthew and St. Mark is the mother of our Lord’s “brothers,” “James and Joses.” Also, it is inconceivable that Matthew and Mark would refer to the Lord’s Mother at the foot of the Cross as the mother of James and Joseph, but not mention that she is the Mother of Jesus as well!


If it is the case, as the Scriptures suggest, that Mary wife of Clopas is the same as the mother of James and Joseph, we have the following conclusion: the Theotokos had a “sister,” married to Clopas, who was the mother of James and Joseph, our Lord’s “brothers.” Here, the question ought to immediately arise concerning the Theotokos’ relationship to this Mary: What kind of “sister” is she?


Hegisippus, a Jewish Christian historian who, according to Eusebius, “belonged to the first generation after the apostles” and who interviewed many Christians from that apostolic community for his history, relates that Clopas was the brother of St. Joseph, foster-father of Christ (apud. Eusb. Eccl. H. iv:22). If this is so (and Hegisippus is generally acknowledged as fully reliable), then “Mary wife of Clopas” was the Virgin Mary’s “sister” in that she was her sister-in-law.


The puzzle therefore fits together. St. Joseph married the Virgin Theotokos, who gave birth to Christ, her only Child, preserving her virginity and having no other children. St. Joseph’s brother, Clopas, also married a woman named Mary, who had the children James and Joseph (along with Judas and Simon, and daughters also). These children were our Lord’s “brothers” (using the terminology of Israel, which as we have seen made no distinction between brothers and cousins but referred to all as “brothers”).


St. Matthew and St. Mark, focusing on our Lord’s family (Matthew 13:53ff and Mark 6:1ff), naturally refer to Clopas’ wife Mary as “the mother of James and Joseph (Joses).” St. John, on the other hand, focuses on our Lord’s Mother (cf. John 2:1ff) and just as naturally refers to this same woman as “His mother’s sister, Mary wife of Clopas.” But it is apparent that it is one and the same woman being referred to by all. This reconstruction is the best that can be made (though others exist, they all contain serious weaknesses) given both the Scriptural and historical evidence."

Aaron

[Edward Henderson]

We must also take into account that "brother" and "sister" can also mean "cousin". Even in modern Russian, the word for cousin is "dvojnii brat" (second brother) or "dvojnaja sestra" (second sister).
As for as the Orthodox understand of predestination verses free will, Elder Cleopas of Romania once said, "The call or election of the soul is not based on its worth or virtue but rather solely on the goodness of God. This invitation is not expressed and offered to a few, as is maintained by the followers of unqualified predestination, but rather to every human being, since the Apostle is speaking only in the plural and thereby showing that it is not that some are preferred and especially invited in the sense of predestination.

It is with this understanding that the Apostle Paul says: For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself as a ransom for all, to be testified in due time (1 Tim. 2: 3-6). If from this text we wanted to expound an unconditional predestination for the heavenly majesty, a predestination of this sort would have to be understood according to the letter and spirit of the text, i.e. as unrestricted and unbounded. However, this would mean that salvation comes automatically to everyone, and it is well known that it does not. Furthermore, the very followers of predestination themselves maintain that the number of the predestined for salvation is restricted.

The truth is that Christ has brought salvation to everyone, something theologians have labelled general (or objective) salvation. And yet, everyone does not actualize this objective salvation, only those who seek and pursue it. While objective salvation is granted to every human being, subjective or personal salvation depends on the intent of man. Those who desire to be saved and work toward that goal receive divine Grace as their aide and guide. This Grace does not work in us violently; rather it abides with us peren- nially as a specific offering for the work of our salvation. Subsequently, it is not possible for us to speak of an unconditional predestination and its inadequate presuppositions for salvation. The truth concerning the predestination, fate and life of man can be summed up as follows.

A. Holy Scripture speaks often of a kind of predestination that carries with it the meaning of pre-knowledge. At times it is spoken of directly, being referred to variously as foreknowledge and predestination, (Acts 2:23 Rom. 8:29) the counsel of His will, (Eph. 1:11) the mystery which hath been hid from the ages, and the book of life (Col. 1:26, Eph. 3:9, Rev. 20:15, Lk. 10:20)

This predetermination is based on the life and works of man, which are plainly evident to our All-knowing God. Indeed, Holy Scripture speaks precisely: And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren. Moreover those whom he predestined, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified (Rom. 8:28-30).

We know also that at the future judgement there will be specific criteria upon which all will be judged. No one will be judged arbitrarily for that judgement will be righteous and unprejudiced. The Apostle says, For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ; that everyone may receive the things done in his body, according to what he hath done, whether it be good or bad (2 Cor. 5: 10, 1 Cor. 3:8). But this I say, he which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully (2 Cor. 9:6).

Furthermore, Holy Scripture sets forth this teaching with more clarity in other ways. It is often repeated that God does not want the death of any sinner, that He is not willing that any should perish, (2 Pet. 3:9, Eph. 4:6, Rom. 3:29) that all are called to salvation, and that God gave His grace to overflowing (Mat. 28:19, Rom. 10:18), precisely there where sin abounded, in order to provide all men with the possibility of salvation. All of this would be made a lie if the number of the chosen were in fact limited.

B. History certifies with all of the Church Fathers and theologians of great authority, together with the entirety of Holy Tradition and its incontestable substantiating elements, that the teaching on divine foreknowledge has always existed within the Church.

- Saint Irenaeus (+202 AD) says: God who knows everything has made ready the proper dwelling: for to those who seek after and yearn for the unapproachable light God in His goodness grants them that light.

- Saint John Chrysostom (+407 AD) says: God has not foreordained us for salvation only out of love, but also on account of our good deeds, because if this (salvation) were dependent only upon our good works then the coming of Christ and everything which He has effected for our salvation would be as though unnecessary.

- Saint Hilary (+367 AD) writes similarly: That which God foresaw, He also foreordained.

- Blessed Jerome (+420 AD) writes: For that which God knew would happen in the life of His Son, that He also permitted (preordained) for His Son.

- Saint Ambrose (+397 AD) says: God did not predetermine without seeing first that which He foreknew. Likewise, in those whom He foresaw worthiness, to those He also preordained a spiritual reward."

[Kosmas Damianides]

Surd Evil is sprouts from philosophy which comes from the Enlightenment movement and believes in a completely distant God rather than a transcendant loving God. Ss Augustine and Irenaeus have been falsely accused in the past of believing in such a God, but this comes from a misunderstanding of "Mystery" in Orthodox Theology. God is an unknown God but is truly revealed through his only begotten Son Jesus Christ. We not only believe in the transcendence of God but also in his imminence.

Surd Evil is an evil which has no meaning and no reason. Our Orthodox understanding is that there is a mysterious understanding and reason behind all forms of evil, pain and suffering. Understanding this and suffering these for the sake of Christ has yields great meaning and profound union with God through prayer. Therefore there is no such thing as Surd Evil in the Orthodox Christian faith.

With Love in Christ

Kosmas

[leandros]

Rev. Dean M. Bell,

Whould you define the term "surd evil" for us, so that you may get an answer for the meaning you initialy implied by asking your question in the first place ?

[Rev. Dean M. Bell]

My understanding of the concept of "surd evil" is a bit cloudy, but I will tyry to explain.

The idea is that there are several levels of reality in creation. For instance, humans, angels, archangels, powers, etc. At all times there is a ongoing war between the forces of good and the forces of evil that takes place in these various realities. Each reality can understand what is below it, but not what is above. For instance, humans can understand the reality of animals but not of angels. Angels understand the reality of humans and animals, but not archangels or powers, etc.

From time to time this ongoing war may spill over from one reality into another which is below. Thus what is occurring in the reality of angels might spill over into the human reality. When that happens beings in the reality of humans find the events before them totally incomprehensible while in actuality, in their proper reality, they will be understood.

This is a concept which I just recently came across in a publication named "Forum Letter," published in conjunction with "Lutheran Forum."

As I mentioned, this my first introduction to the idea and I was hoping someone would be able to fill in more information.

I hope my attempt at an explanation has helped and not hindered the possibility of discussion.

Thank you all very much for any light you can cast. I would be especially interested in hearing more concerning this being an idea born of the enlightenment.

Rev. Dean M. Bell
Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod

[leandros]

You can find the Orthodox doctrine on this issue in an essay of St. Athanasios

HYPERLINK [Link 1] (http://biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/FATHERS2/NPNF204/NPNF2011.HTM#P1599=)and [Link 2] (http://biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/FATHERS2/NPNF204/NPNF2011.HTM#P1=)

paragraphs 6, 7, 8

P1599_540267=A76. False Views of the Nature of Evil: Viz., that Evil is Something in the Nature of Things, and Has Substantive Existence. (A) Heathen Thinkers: (Evil Resides in Matter). Their Refutation. (B) = Heretical Teachers: (Dualism). Refutation from Scripture.

P1604_543000=A77. Refutation of Dualism Front Reason. Impossibility of = Two Gods. The Truth as to Evil is that Which the Church Teaches : that It Originates, and Resides, in the Perverted Choice of the Darkened Soul.

P1608_545740=A78. The Origin of Idolatry is Similar. The Soul, = Materialised by Forgetting God, and Engrossed in Earthly Things, Makes Them into Gods. = The Rate of Men Descends into a Hopeless Depth as Decision and = Superstition.=20

(Message edited by admin on 01 June, 2005)

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Mr Bell (do inform as to preferred title; 'Mr' is that used for direct address of 'Revds' here in England, if 'Fr' is not used),

I've read your post with interest. I've not heard the term phrase 'surd evil' prior to this discussion, and must confess still to be confused as to how the term 'surd' fits the concept (which to my knowledge must come from Latin, surdus, meaning 'speechless'; though surdus may be a Latin paraphrase of the Greek alogos, which can also be translated 'irrational' -- so perhaps there a connection).

From the Orthodox perspective, some caution must be shown with the manner of distinct categories of existence that the rough definition of 'surd evil' you offered requires (i.e. between angelic realms, the human, animal, etc.). Surely these are distinct as categories, but all are part of a single economy -- one encompassing reality that is the handiwork of God moving towards salvation. There are ranks and orders therein, distinct in created nature and even 'realm'; but the very purpose of these ranks and orders is precisely to interact with others, such that the whole economy is brought, by and through the economy, to closer communion with God. The writings of pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite are perhaps the most profound in setting out this understanding.

Orthodox ascetical practice, with a delineation of arenas of progress that is often seen as praktiki, theoretiki, theologia (practical knowledge, theoretical knowledge, divine vision) is indeed built on the foundation that a knowledge of the inner natures of 'other realms' (i.e. the lower and the higher) is possible, precisely through a union with God who is the source of knowledge of all realities. One is joined to the Knower (as such because he is the Creator), and partakes in such knowledge. Our lack of understanding and awareness of the other 'realms' of God's creation is not an 'ontological requirement', but an effect of our brokenness. It is healable and redeemable.

The goings-on of beings in the various ranks of creation, such as seen in your description of 'surd evil', would have bearing primarily only through the intellectual realms: humanity and the bodiless host (angels) -- for it is only the rational that are able to cause and inflict evil, as evil is not ontological but an act of will. And scripture is replete with the witness of evil interactions between the angelic realm (for we must never forget that Satan and the demons are not a 'category of creation' in their own right, but a portion of the angelic realm in rebellion). The most pronounced example is of course the first: the interaction of Eve and Adam with the serpent in Eden.

However, I would be inclined to suppose that Orthodoxy would look disfavourably on the adjective 'surd' being applied to such evil, if indeed that term means 'speechless' or 'unknown' or 'irrational'. We know full-well the nature and source of evil in any realm, for evil is always defined -- whether in an angel or in a human person -- as the departure from and rebellion against God.

INXC, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

This falls under the heading of carping, but I just really cringe when I see the term "brokenness." It reminds me of my old Episcopalian crowd. Brokenness is all too often used as a polite and, I'm afraid, disingenuous substitute for the corruption of our nature due to sin. It typically denotes alienation, which seems to be the agreed on modernist conceit.

[leandros]

You can find the Orthodox doctrine on this issue in an essay of St. Athanasios

[link] (http://biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/FATHERS2/NPNF204/NPNF2011.HT=%20M#P1%20599_540267)

paragraphs 6, 7, 8

=A76. False Views of the Nature of Evil: Viz., that Evil is Something = in the Nature of Things, and Has Substantive Existence. (A) Heathen Thinkers: = (Evil Resides in Matter). Their Refutation. (B) Heretical Teachers: = (Dualism). Refutation from Scripture.

=A77. Refutation of Dualism Front Reason. Impossibility of Two Gods. = The Truth as to Evil is that Which the Church Teaches : that It Originates, and Resides, in the Perverted Choice of the Darkened Soul.

=A78. The Origin of Idolatry is Similar. The Soul, Materialised by = Forgetting God, and Engrossed in Earthly Things, Makes Them into Gods. The Rate of = Men Descends into a Hopeless Depth as Decision and Superstition.=20

(Message edited by admin on 01 June, 2005)

[Herman Blaydoe]

This "surd" stuff sounds rather absurd, perhaps grist for a new graphic novel from the creator of "Hell Boy" or "Spawn", or even a new series on the Fox channel.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Owen wrote:


This falls under the heading of carping, but I just really cringe when I see the term "brokenness." It reminds me of my old Episcopalian crowd. Brokenness is all too often used as a polite and, I'm afraid, disingenuous substitute for the corruption of our nature due to sin. It typically denotes alienation, which seems to be the agreed on modernist conceit.

Don't let poor usage in another context destroy a term and a concept that have merit when understood correctly (as, for example, so much the case with Orthodox rejections of the term 'justification' when speaking of salvation, out of a dislike for misuse of that term in other contexts).

The key feature of the term 'broken', in English, is that it implies the sense of reparable deviation from an intended norm, in a way that 'corruption' often does not -- partially because that latter term has a heritage and history all its own, often implying ontological or fundamental mutation, which is by and large not what most of the Greek fathers meant by it.

INXC, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

When I hear the term corruption applied theologically, perhaps I am unique, but I don't infer from that a fundamental mutation in the nature of something. I don't know of any common usage that would imply that. Theologically, it says to me something akin to the way a cancer or some other type of disease corrupts the proper functions of the system. When corruption is used in the civic sense, it typically means that someone has been led astray by the temptation of easy money. But that doesn't mean that the person has been fundamentally mutated.

Brokenness, on the other hand, is kind of a catchy word that is used, intentionally, by many, to imply a severaing of or distortion of relationships. So the further implication is that the problem can be solved by either repairing relationships, or creating new ones. The people who use the term most often have a theology which equates sin and fallenness with alienation. The cure that is proposed is typically that we get rid of our reactionary impulses, be open, reach out, promote diversity among straights, gays and lesbians and the transgendered, people of color, and the oppressed, speak truth to power, etc, etc. It has, therefore, a quasi-revolutionary political-Hegelian connotation, at least with most of the people who use it.

[Kosmas Damianides]

The west has always had a distorted view on evil. Evil (Gk. poneiro) means being cunning or devious.

When applied to spirits or demons, these are not by nature or by essence "evil", it is their fallen characteristics and behaviour which makes them "evil". That is why when someone is called evil in western society, this means that they are by essence evil. But in the East there is another understanding, it is their behaviour which makes them and describes them as being cunning or devious or evil. In fact there is no word in Greek which correctly fits the wester concept of Evil appart from perhaps kakourgos, and even this term (kako+ergo)describes someone who does bad works or things.

Even in the Lord's prayer "...but deliver us from evil/evil one." (ie can be translated either way), the ending has always been ambiguous, (I think Jesus did this on purpose)some people prefering to use "from evil." since this encompasses all things, including the devil, and evil spirits which affect our soul in a negative way, others however insist that it should be translated "the Evil One". since they are convinced that it is refering to Satan alone who is by nature evil...but is he? Do we realy know this to be true? I believe he made himself evil, as tradition tells us. He fell from grace, just as we fell from grace and can also make ourselves evil, yet this does not describe our nature, it describes our intentions our deeds and our behaviour. Cunningness, which is perhaps a more precise translation for "Poneiria", I believe should be always at the back of our minds when we say evil or evil one. And I don't agree that replacing the word evil with "the cunning one" would change the way the west thinks about evil.

Lots of Love,

Komas

[Byron Jack Gaist]

In his book, The Orthodox Way, Bishop Kallistos mentions that "evil confronts us as a surd". Here is a dictionary definition of "surd" ( definition of surd (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=surd)), which seems to emphasize the irrational element in the word, as well as an inability to hear (rather than to speak). So evil which confronts us as a surd is probably evil which appears irrational and renders the cosmos a silent and unhearing place from our human perspective. It seems to me only faith in a God Who hears all and sees all can save us from the depression which accompanies the perspective that the world is such a place, but humanity is, literally, hanging on a prayer there.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

P.S. One of the things I have difficulty understanding in the Christian notion of evil (Dr Steenberg may be able to help here), is that evil is not ontological, it has no substance in itself - does good have such substance? Or is goodness also a matter of will? And what is "bad will" then, how is it different from "good will" - I mean philosophically, not just in terms of the narrative St Athanasius so illuminatingly already offers in his text above. I guess what I'm asking is, what is then the ontological status of evil in (Orthodox) Christian theology?

[leandros]

Friend, Byron Jack Gaist,

Let me use an analogy, in order not to present just an abstract theoretical reply, to your questioning.

(Lets assume) Last night I went to the theatre. There were real people, performing "roles" of a theatrical play. In this "play" there were several "evil roles" and "good roles". Finally "good roles" prevailed over the "evil" and we all enjoyed a "happy ending".

In the context of "theatrical life”, there are "good" and "evil" realities performed on stage. In this context there is no life beyond stage, as far as "roles" have the power to exist only on stage. It's a natural limitation: "role" has a natural substance that can only be realized as a "reality" of a theatrical play only “on theatrical stage”.

But, the actors/actresses are not stage-restricted beings. They have the power to exist beyond stage. There is no way for a “role” to “connect” with this “beyond stage” life. The “stage life” and the “life beyond stage” are mutually excluded: is it possible for a “role/actor” to accept a phone call on stage from his “real-life-out-of-theater wife” and to talk with her in a rational way? No.

The “role” is a self-existent self-justified “reality”, either “good” or “evil”, that survives/exists thanks to the actor/actress. But the “reality” of “role” is non-existed, it is a pretended reality, performed by an actual being. The actor/actress can be on stage only if he/she acts according a “role”. There can be no role-less actor/actress on stage, or else the stage transforms into non-stage real life. A non-pretender is a non-actor/actress.

Also, there can not be “role acting” inside real life beyond stage, because it would transform real life into a stage: I can not exist as a “theatrical role” facing my wife, because then she becomes a meaningless presence of a non-existed “role”.

What this theatrical analogy is telling us? That, there are two realities: one generated and the other non-generated. The generated reality is a pretended one. Generated “good” and “evil” is a non-existed reality of role playing. Why then theatrical “good” is preferred over theatrical “evil”? Well, it is not!

What Christian Orthodox Church proposes is to “stop acting”. Ascetic life, as it is proposed by the Church, is a complete denial of “theatrical life”. Sell all your “theatrical wardrobe” says the Church. (Matthew 19:21) “Jesus answered, ‘If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.’" Then, how can I perform the role of “evil”, or the role of “good” as a bankrupt “role”? Well, Church says to us: be role-less beings, this is the path that will guide us into divine treasure. “Divine goodness” is not a “role”, it’s not a generated action, but it is an ungenerated action.

So, just as the “evil” and “good” of "roles" are “ontological”/existential on the theatrical stage as a generated entities, and there is the non-theatrical “goodness” of the person/actor/actress that is an “ontological”/existential ungenerated entity (in the context that “role” is generated and actor/actress is ungenerated regarding the theatrical world), also, in our generated world, human “evil” and human “good” are ontological (they exist), but they are depended on the existence of the theatrical “scene” that we call “our life/world”.

As soon as we exit from the theatre of “our life” and we enter into the ungenerated reality of God’s Life, beyond our “theatrical” stage, these “roles” of acting “evil” and of acting “good” are irrelevant and they actually vanish to non-ontology.

What is important is to be, and not to “act”.

In this context both theatrical "evil" and "good" are surd, as they are meaningless in the real life beyond the theatre.

But as I said, the actor/actress must play a role, or he/she has no place to be on stage. In this context, we also, if we stop to “act” according to an “evil” or good “role” we have no place to be in the real world. This is the problem that faces “generation” in meeting “non-generation”.

This is what Church calls “adoption”, meaning that Christ is a genuine Son, and that we are “adopted” Sons/Daughters of God. Christ is uncreated, and we become “uncreated”, we are divinised by Grace. Christ exists as a Person beyond our “theatrical” created life, and we exist inside this “theatrical life”. By participation into Church’s life (which is Christ’s life) we exit from the “stage” into "beyond theatrical life” which is uncreated. But this is an issue for another Thread.

God bless us all.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear friend Leandros,

Please take no offence (as none is meant), but why do Greeks say things in a thousand words when they could just use a couple?! You make some interesting and important points, but I'm lost in all the jargon you appear to have invented!

Anyway, from what I gather, you are saying that Jesus is the authentic Son of God in His uncreated being, whereas we humans must struggle to become uncreated, partly by divesting ourselves of the various "roles" we've adopted in the course of our lives, and particularly in our relationship to God. In this context therefore, neither the "good" we do, nor the "evil" have any ultimate meaning - since they are actions we perform while "on stage", what the existentialists might perhaps call "inauthentic" acts I presume. You are saying such acts, and here is where I get confused, do have ontological status, but they "vanish into non-ontology" when we enter the "ungenerated reality of God's Life"?

So what has being and what hasn't? I thought the Orthodox viewpoint (and pretty much that of Catholics and Protestants also) was that only good has any ontological status, evil being a perversion of the will which in its natural state tends towards the good.

Any theologians - help!

In Christ,
Byron

[nurse-aid]

Let me to breath, to love, to live according to Your Will!
Let me to sing the song of Will…just Yes, according to Your Will!
Let me to walk in path or stream, that mighty river-life,
swim in the presents of Your love, according to Your Will!

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Evil is not ontological because it is a distortion of the human nature which God created as good. I think that it is St Dionysios Areopagite who points out that even the evil spirits try to justify their actions as being good- of course by their own evil definition. But it is very interesting that most evil is done because, "it seemed right" or "it felt good". Recently of course there is more and more evil being done for openly nihilist purposes. But even here the person does this through some sort of positive attraction. It is like we are hot-wired for life but the sinful attraction for death is what flows through the wires.

In a recent biography of Stalin by Simon Sebag Montefiore there is a fascinating use of a lot of newly revealed material from the archives. It's still the same pathological Stalin- extremely cruel & paranoid- but with added details that help explain his climb to power. For example that he could be very charming & friendly in a group setting; that he loved reading & was much more highly educated (self-educated) than is realised. Also at rare moments there were sparks of humanity -like the time to the utter shock of a party worker he said that he (the party worker) must support his father who had been a priest- it actually turned out Stalin was secretly sending money to the priest. Of course even with all of this new material Stalin is still deeply disturbed & responsable for the murder of millions. There are still the spine-chilling accounts of Stalin signing sheets with hundreds of names of those to be immediately shot.

It is interesting how we seek to understand such characters. The latest biographies of Stalin & Hitler are best-sellers. We not only seek to understand the lessons of history but have an insatiable desire to come to grips with such characters that came from our own midst. In terms of the nature of evil it is striking that every such biography attempts to understand 'the rationale' which drove such characters to do what they did. This need to explain in a rational way seems almost irresistable. And yet after getting a fuller, more complex picture we are still left with the irrational mystery of evil. As one historian wrote- at the end of the day there is no rational explanation for the irrational.

Perhaps in Orthodox terms this simply means that evil is always a distortion.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[leandros]

why do Greeks say things in a thousand words when they could just use a couple?!

I know Byron...Even my wife has the same problem (with me) - and she is Greek ! http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/blush.gif


I thought the Orthodox viewpoint (and pretty much that of Catholics and Protestants also) was that only good has any ontological status, evil being a perversion of the will which in its natural state tends towards the good.

Dear Byron,

If "good" is receptive of being perverted then it is not "good" enough.

If "light" is receptive of being blacken then it is not "light" enough.

If "attributes" are introduced as qualities and quantities of "Christianity" then Christ was crusified for nothing more than a "weight on a balance" issue.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Fr Raphael wrote:


Evil is not ontological because it is a distortion of the human nature which God created as good.

Thank you Fr Raphael for your input. I think that clarifies the issue quite a bit. Interesting asides about Stalin, he sounds quite a complicated figure. Evil may well be an irrational mystery as you describe, but I can't help wondering what, in Christian terms, the relationship between ethics and ontology is. Why is something good existent, but something evil non-existent? Or am I looking at it the wrong way round, perhaps I should really be asking why is something existent good, whereas something non-existent is evil? Perhaps this way of formulating the question is closer to the Christian understanding? And, since these are the days of Pentecost, I am always wondering about that prayer to the Holy Spirit, in which we say "Who is everywhere and fillest all things" - is He really everywhere? What about in places where there is terrible evil and injustice? Doesn't He depart from the human heart when it decides to cooperate with evil?

Also, this brings up for me the question of the Christian response to the claim made by many Eastern philosophies that the world is an illusion. If this world is a changing, temporary, corruptible place (as it surely now is), then does it really "exist" in Christian terms? Could we say that the good world God created ceased to exist after the Fall?

Leandros, are you arguing that human nature could not have been "good" as God created it, because it was capable of being perverted? Help me out with what you mean here. Still, it's to your credit in my opinion that you've kept your answer brief this time!

In Christ
Byron

[leandros]

Dear Friend Byron,

There is the human generated "good" that is done and then it is undone and there is the ungenerated "Good" of Trinity Life which is Uncreated Energy of God.

Human "good" acting is not "existential». It’s like an act performed by actors in a theatrical play.

Uncreated Energies of God are existential. Divide Good has a substantial existence because it is "performed" before time.

The "evil" in our human lives is a subjective realization of being. If I cut your leg, you can understand my action as "evil", but you can also understand it as "good", in case I am a doctor and by cutting your leg I save your life.

If you starve to death, of course this is "evil" for you, but in case I earn money, or power, from your condition this is "good" for me. This sounds cynical, but there is no such thing as objective/intersubjective "good" and "evil" in created reality.

Human nature is created for a "Good" functionality, to be glorified partaking in uncreated Trinity Life. This is an Ungenerated Energy of God. By personal choice we abstain from this existential "Good" and we create our own "good" and "evil". This is what happened in paradise.

God has an uncreated notion of Good: "Divine Good" exists, but "Divine Evil" does not exist. In their Uncreateness "Divine Good" is the Trinity Life Presence, and "Divine Evil" would have been the Trinity Life absence. But there was never a time that the Trinity Life was not, and that "never" is caused by the uncreated will of the Father. Divine Good is the only uncreated existential ontological reality.

The hypothetical absence of Divine Good is a phantom of our imagination that creates and destroys objective realities with the same convenience that creates and destroys fantastic creatures - because we transform objective realities into subjective ourself-determined realities.

If I accept to relate with you in goodness, or if I kill you, these actions by themselves express the same reality: I execute an action to someone; it is a presentation of myself. The object of my action is one of many objects, in one of many actions performed by me. All my actions have one common parameter: myself. So living into realities of "good" and "evil" actions there is one parameter that remains unchanged, that is myself. Then, becomes irrelevant whether I act "good" or "evil" because experience of created "good" and "evil" is the absolute subjectivize of being.

Take for example little children, they are innocent in acting. They perform “right” and “wrong” actions but nobody characterise them as “good” or “evil”, because a child does not has a subjective realization of the “world”. It acts according to God’s intention, according to human nature, in realizing reality as it is. It does not have the possibility to imagine “not being”. It lacks the power to imagine my "absence". A child could kill me with its wrong actions, but it is innocent of evil. It does not know "good" and "evil". Neither "good" nor "evil" exist in a child's world. A child is like Adam in paradise before fall.

Ooops, I said too much. Cut. Cut. Cut...

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Leandros,

These are fascinating thoughts! I'm not sure I can get my head around all of them (I won't even bother to mention my heart or my actual behaviour...).

You write:


living into realities of "good" and "evil" actions there is one parameter that remains unchanged, that is myself. Then, becomes irrelevant whether I act "good" or "evil" because experience of created "good" and "evil" is the absolute subjectivize of being.

Doesn't this encourage moral relativism? if all my actions, "good" or "evil" are trapped in a subjectivity from which there is no escape, then why bother to even try to be good? Everything I do is tainted by my selfishness, so might as well act irresponsibly? I'm sure you can't be saying this (if you are, you're in the wrong web discussion group - moral nihilists must be somewhere else on the web!)?

As for the actions of litle children, they may be done in greater inocence than adult acts, but does that render them immune to the Fall? Don't get me wrong, I love little kids, but we still have to teach them right and wrong, good and evil as they grow up, don't we?

I think I'm going to need a more precise explanation of the way in which Divine uncreated energy relates to our human subjectivity. Where are you geting this philosophy from, by the way? Is it one of the Church Fathers?

I look forward to more, and more economically!

In Christ
Byron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Byron,

You asked


Why is something good existent, but something evil non-existent? Or am I looking at it the wrong way round, perhaps I should really be asking why is something existent good, whereas something non-existent is evil? Perhaps this way of formulating the question is closer to the Christian understanding?

Our understanding of existent good & non-existent evil is grounded in our understanding of created being as God created this. Created being is dynamic coming from God 'out of nothing' (which in Orthodox terms denotes coming not from something apart from God) and being fulfilled in Him. It is this which illumines our understanding of how created being is 'good' as Genesis says & this defines what true existence is.
Conversely then by evil as non-existence we do not mean that evil is illusory or has no presence but rather that it is a destructive distortion of being. In other words its platform is being and without being it could not exist.

In the Gospels Christ tells the parable of the wheat & the tares. He explains that the present age is not the time when the tares can be entirely removed without tearing out the wheat also. This refers I think to the point made above that evil is not just something which is seperate 'nothingness'. If this was so then our struggle against sin would just be a matter of self-violence. But yet things are much more complex than this for we are talking not about destroying someone and rebuilding them in Christ- but rather about transformation & transfiguration.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[leandros]

Boosted by Fr Raphael's wise responce, let me submit an article (http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/fathers/gregory-of-nyssa-sharing-beautiful.asp) from St. Gregory of Nyssa work "Great Catechism":

"But the question, how one who had been created for no evil purpose by Him who framed the system of the Universe in goodness fell away, nevertheless, into this passion of envy, it is not a part of my present business minutely to discuss; though it would not be difficult, and it would not take long, to offer an account to those who are amenable to persuasion. For the distinctive difference between virtue and vice is not to be contemplated as that between two actually subsisting phenomena; but as there is a logical opposition between that which is and that which is not, and it is not possible to say that, as regards subsistency, that which is not is distinguished from that which is, but we say that nonentity is only logically opposed to entity, in the same way also the word vice is opposed to the word virtue, not as being any existence in itself, but only as becoming thinkable by the absence of the better. As we say that blindness is logically opposed to sight, not that blindness has of itself a natural existence, being only a deprivation of a preceding faculty, so also we say that vice is to be regarded as the deprivation of goodness, just as a shadow which supervenes at the passage of the solar ray.

Since, then, the uncreated nature is incapable of admitting of such movement as is implied in turning or change or alteration, while everything that subsists through creation has connection with change, inasmuch as the subsistence itself of the creation had its rise in change, that which was not passing by the Divine power into that which is; and since the above-mentioned power was created too, and could choose by a spontaneous movement whatever he liked, when he had closed his eyes to the good and the ungrudging like one who in the sunshine lets his eyelids down upon his eyes and sees only darkness, in this way that being also, by his very unwillingness to perceive the good, became cognisant of the contrary to goodness. Now this is Envy. Well, it is undeniable that the beginning of any matter is the cause of everything else that by consequence follows upon it, as, for instance, upon health there follows a good habit of body, activity, and a pleasurable life, but upon sickness, weakness, want of energy, and life passed in distaste of everything;"

[leandros]

Doesn't this encourage moral relativism? if all my actions, "good" or "evil" are trapped in a subjectivity from which there is no escape, then why bother to even try to be good? Everything I do is tainted by my selfishness, so might as well act irresponsibly? I'm sure you can't be saying this (if you are, you're in the wrong web discussion group - moral nihilists must be somewhere else on the web!)?

Dear Byron,

You got me right! Let ‘s see an example : (Genesis 3:6-7) “When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.”

Now, was the act of Eve an “evil” act, or a “good” act? She tasted a “fruit” that was “pleasing to the eye”, “desirable for gaining wisdom”. Then, she offered it to her husband, because it tasted “good”. She meant no harm; she wanted the “good” of Adam. This is the behaviour of childishness!

I remember my child-niece being offered a “magic filter” that would make her “invisible” by some older children. The “filter” was just strawberry juice, and after she drunk it, as she liked the first experienced taste of strawberry, having believed that invisibility was at hand, she offered some of the juice to her mother, so that they both would become invisible. After seeing her mother drunk from the “filter” and seeing her remaining visible, my nice was so brokenhearted from her fake belief in becoming invisible! In this case, my niece was wrong because she left herself to imagine that she was part of an invisible world. If we wanted to characterize her motives, or her actions, they were both innocent and they were neither “good” nor “evil”. The result of this “innocent” act was that she realized that she could not have been anything more than herself, a visible creature. This is the knowledge of created “good” and of created “evil” that she lacked until the moment of the experiential self-awareness of not being capable of being in a self-determined transformed “invisible” fashion, that she was objectively realized in an “immobile” “visible” nature. This is the knowledge of nakedness of our nature. I clothe myself in order to transform my look, in order to look transformable.

We use to call such experiences, growing up, or maturing, but we ought to think that growing up and maturing are fearful terms for aged people and at the same time they are delightful terms for youth. To know our created natural limits has at first a sweet taste, and then becomes bitter.

Going back to “good” and “evil”, as subjective realizations, let me present just another example (I am trying to form a brief response – time is running…) :

(Matthew 4:1-4) Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread." Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'

Why Christ refused to transform the stones to bread? He was hungry, and He could have fed Himself - besides it was a demand coming also from His human nature. Was it a choice between an “evil” and a “good” option? What was “the temptation” after all? Satan, like he always does, asked the same childish request: “do your trick that will prove yourself to be the “imaginary” self that you are not by nature”. Satan is always asking from us, humans, to bring into “reality” the non-existed subjective self-determined image of “our self” that we generate/create as our adopted personality. Well, Christ did not had such a created personality as a human being and he never “imagined” eating rocks, not even when he was being asked by Satan. So, he neither did a “good” act nor an “evil” act by answering to Satan in the way He did. He just answered in a natural way: I agree that I am hungry and I need some food, but there is no food around here, in such circumstances a human being should ask help from His Father God, Whose Word is Life and Food. Because Satan phrased the question with “If you are the Son of God…”, Christ gave an answer beyond expectation that, the Father is to provide the answer over the question “Who am I ?“ and how I subjectively realise “Self”. Actually Satan received the answer against his “if” question, that Christ is the Son of God, because He is the “Word that comes from the mouth of God”, meaning that created world is not self-transformed into divinity (the transformation of stones was a question of human’s nature divinization) but unexpectedly created human beings personally partake into Life of Trinity Persons. This answer is given, since Pentecost Day, from Christians all over the world. Doing “good” or “evil” is irrelevant regarding this question.

Let me return for a short while to my niece, again. When she was a little girl I asked her “whether she would like to eat a delicious ice-cream, which I knew she much liked”. Unexpectedly she returned to her mother and asked “mammy do I like ice creams?” That reminded me of some orthodox monks that are asking their spiritual fathers about everything, living in a life of submission that transforms their lives beyond “good” and “evil”.

Remember that Satan said to Eve: (Genesis 3:5) "For God knows that, if you eat of it, on the same day, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." Eve and Adam should have answered: we are those that God knows us to be, we are not “those that we are not” and we can not imagine becoming like “those that we are not”. Instead they choose the “good” fruit “pleasing to the eye and also desirable for gaining wisdom”, in a subjective realization of introducing a created “good” in their lives in an effort to be like “those that they were not”.

The result of knowledge of created “good” end “evil” is not a responsibility for a bad choice which is taken as a failure or as a success. It is an ontological transformation; it is the maturity of “immortality” that ends up to death.

Our world was original created as a world of immortal children! Sometimes, when I visit monasteries I feel the blessing of “childish” innocent monastic society between monks that are living the live of submission, without selfish behaviour. "Being non-selfish" is being beyond “good” and “evil”. God would never appoint responsibility for the actions of these selfish-less persons neither for their “good” nor for their “evil” actions; they are - just like young children - innocent of both.

That’s enough for now; I know that I must also obey your requirement for shortness.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

From Fr Raphael's explanation of the relation between existence and goodness, I understand that all that exists is good, because it has its source in the Creator; however, as a result of the rebellion of the angels and subsequently the fall of mankind, this basic goodness of the whole creation and everything in it has been distorted by evil, which nevertheless relies on the being-ness of good in order to exist or continue. Evil in this model seems to me to be either a distortion of the good, or a "deficit / absence" of it - but an absence which nevertheless subsists, parasitically one might say, on the essentially good being which underlies it. Which of these is it then - distortion or absence?

Fr Raphael then says:


This refers I think to the point made above that evil is not just something which is seperate 'nothingness'. If this was so then our struggle against sin would just be a matter of self-violence. But yet things are much more complex than this for we are talking not about destroying someone and rebuilding them in Christ- but rather about transformation & transfiguration.

This seems to me hugely important in our understanding of people seeking healing in psychology. It seems to me that good therapy is never about breaking a person's defenses down, or forcing them to submit to external authority, but about helping them to redirect their energy, what is already there but not finding creative outlets. This also means recognising that our "nature", which contains such impulses as aggression, sexuality and self-preservation, is not inherently evil or corrupt, but is actually created potentially good and capable of transformation from its undeveloped to its mature expression. From a Christian perspective moreover, we are, as Fr Raphael describes, not capable of overcoming our difficulties by sheer "self-violence" (although the Kingdom belongs to the violent who take it by storm, doesn't it?), but we rely presumably on Divine Grace for lasting changes to occur in us.

Brother Leandros, thank you for the article by Gregory of Nyssa. I had a friend once, who used to say that, had we not had darkness, we would not know what light is; had we not had sorrow, we would not know joy. The other opinion I've also heard is that permanent joy and light are very good, thank you very much, and I don't need to experience the loss of either to know that they are valuable. I'm not sure which of these schools of thought I subscribe to. Perhaps Adam and Eve originally experienced the latter condition, but came to inflict the former upon themselves by the fruit of knowledge.

Leandros, you seem to be saying there is a state of selflessness which is beyond good and evil, or perhaps outside of it. In other words, if we weren't partly "evil", we wouldn't be aware that we are doing "good"?

In Christ
Byron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Byron asked:


Evil in this model seems to me to be either a distortion of the good, or a "deficit / absence" of it - but an absence which nevertheless subsists, parasitically one might say, on the essentially good being which underlies it. Which of these is it then - distortion or absence?

I think that evil is a distortion primarily of nature not of good.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[leandros]

Brother Leandros, thank you for the article by Gregory of Nyssa. I had a friend once, who used to say that, had we not had darkness, we would not know what light is; had we not had sorrow, we would not know joy. The other opinion I've also heard is that permanent joy and light are very good, thank you very much, and I don't need to experience the loss of either to know that they are valuable. I'm not sure which of these schools of thought I subscribe to. Perhaps Adam and Eve originally experienced the latter condition, but came to inflict the former upon themselves by the fruit of knowledge.

Leandros, you seem to be saying there is a state of selflessness which is beyond good and evil, or perhaps outside of it. In other words, if we weren't partly "evil", we wouldn't be aware that we are doing "good"?

Brother Byron,

I never intented to say that we need to taste darkness in order to know/value light. No, sir. You are referring to a comparative/relative model. This was neither my point nor I implied a valuable “permanent joy and light”. Let me clarify my earlier post.

Knowledge of created “good” and “evil” is an experiential reality. If I realize my self as a flying-capable being and thereof I fall over a infinitely high building, the result would be to live the experience of “evil” downfall without ending. This experience is not a relative notion between different qualities of existence. In order to experience the normal non-flying life I have no need for “downfall” experience. I just need solidness under my feet.

What Adam and Eve did was that they threw themselves into void, which was their imaginary subjective deification, and there was nothing there to stop their fall ! There is nothing substantial in subjectiveness. They found the “image/fantasy” of themselves “floating” as Gods with no substructure as “pleasing to the eye”, “desirable for gaining wisdom”. Just as they experienced their subjective self-realization of floating, their fall was a reality, not a comparative experience, and tragically they lost the former stand for ever.

“Fall” is the Patristic term for their (and our) action and it is the most suitable word indeed.

“good” is the substructure that is existentially holding the human being into non-floating self-awareness. Substructure is the “otherness”, as a personal experience of subjective participation into another unseen subjective reality.

“evil” is the absence of such “substructure”, it is the subjective participation into our subjective realization. It is a personal self-isolation, an attempt of floating over our subjective realization of non-experience.

In both instances we are present, but in the “good” instance we foot on “otherness” and we experience existence and in the “evil” instance we experience downfall into non-existence. Neither “evil”, nor “good” destroy us. In both cases we experience, we understand, we exist. The difference is that by standing on “good” we identify our self-awareness with our authentic self, while by falling in “evil” we lose self-awareness in an abyss of self-ignorance.

If I realise my self as “to be God”, in a dynamic self-awareness of being in power to become like God, then the means of becoming as one of my possible “selves” are irrelevant, and “God becoming” is just another possibility of many. It is a matter of time, through failures, to succeed. Likewise “being good” and “being evil” are possibilities of self-becoming, not of being. In this context, “good”, “evil”, and “becoming God” are all created performances of my acting/role played by SELF, because the essence of self existence is not being ME, but becoming otherness. As long as I exist, it is irrelevant who I am, as long as “otherness” is always changing and I have to become like it! “To exist” is the same as "ME". It is this false of Satan, to believe that "existence" is "ME", which we make too.

We forget that that there was a time that "ME" was not. Our creaturehood is the stand where existence is based on. Being "ME" means to stay put on creaturehood. Stepping away from creaturehood, trying to adopt uncreaturehood, is the mi**** Adam end Eve did – and we do too.

Last word: Why then Adam and Eve were given the command in paradise? Well, it was not a command; it was the foothold on which they sustained being themselves. The absence of command would have resulted into being themselves like animals are, floating without falling and without having solidness under their presence, with no substructure in an impersonal objective realization of existence, without being able personaly to partake into Trinity Life.

We can find the meaning, and the analogy, of this Orthodox anthropology by studying the life of Stylites Saints, like Saint Alipios the Stylite. (http://www.saintbarbara.org/about/icons/alipios.cfm)

[leandros]

Let me submit a synaxarion of Saint Alipios the Stylite. (http://www.saintbarbara.org/about/icons/alipios.cfm) His life was a living Christian Theology where "good" end "evil" were presented beyond "this world".

Through the prayers of St Alipios, may God bless us all.

http://www.monachos.net/mb/icons/mime_msword.gifSaint Alipios the Stylite SaintAlipiosStylite.doc (http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4225/SaintAlipiosStylite-20252.doc) (39.9 k)

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Leandros,

Thank you for the life of St Alipios, which is quite intimidating for me as a hedonist in its ascetic severity and profundity of faith. I assume that it is an example of how much saints struggle to get away from created being and "do violence to nature", as the text suggests.

Alas brother Leandros, try as I may, I'm afraid I still don't understand your philosophy on good and evil; maybe I'm just not ready to yet, spiritually. I'm sure you have an important point, though, and I liked the following quote, which does make a lot of sense to me:


Neither “evil”, nor “good” destroy us. In both cases we experience, we understand, we exist. The difference is that by standing on “good” we identify our self-awareness with our authentic self, while by falling in “evil” we lose self-awareness in an abyss of self-ignorance.

Fr Raphael, presumably a saint like St Alipios is one who struggled to free himself and be freed from the bonds of fallen nature; in other words, to render the Image visible by doing violence to its distortion. Is this correct? If this is so, my question would then be, how do we know or have any clue as to what kind of "violence" it is necessary to do to our fallen nature? St Alipios lived on a pillar; how do I know whether this, or something else, is required of me?

In Christ
Byron

[Byron Jack Gaist]

The following is a quotation from today's monachos main page:


The reason why God has accorded us this present life, is to give us a place for repentance. Were this not the case, a person who sinned would at once be deprived of this life. For otherwise of what use would it be to him?
—St Gregory Palamas

In the context of doing violence to one's nature, I'm having trouble understanding even this. This may sound an ignorant question, but it's a real one for me: if this life is given us for repentance, why is it given us in the first place? Why does God allow us humans to keep coming into the world as blameworthy beings, needing to make amends and mourn our forefathers' sin? If the purpose of life is repentance, isn't man then a sorry creature, born trapped in evil which he can at best only aspire to escape with Divine assistance? What sort of love is God giving us, if He is merely tolerating our sins to give us a chance to repent? This sounds to me more like a Judge who is being simply patient before ultimately passing sentence - we might be let off on good behaviour, but what kind of life has this then been?

Please forgive me if this query causes any offence.

In Christ
Byron

[leandros]

I assume that it is an example of how much saints struggle to get away from created being and "do violence to nature", as the text suggests.

Brother Byron,

I feel that saints are struggling to stay firmly put as created beings. This is the "violence to nature", as "nature" asks for its self-justification and for its “transformation” to what it's not.

For instance, when it rains it is natural to get wet, when it has sunshine it is natural to get worm. By changing our personal "environment" - clothing, housing - we wear "garments of skin" (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%203:21;&version=31;), which is a “clothing” of creaturehood.

Saints remove this clothing of creaturehood and they struggle to accept "being created" as a living experience of their authentic self - naked creaturehood . They do not “struggle to get way for created being”. On the contrary, St Alipios, on the column, struggled to accept his natural creaturehood, against the temptation to “cover” it, to “protect” it, to “transform” it uncreaturehood.

The “violence to nature” is not to go beyond nature. “Violence to nature” is to accept the genuine nature of self.

Let me say that, it’s like in a love making situation: the “struggle”, of a lover, is to remove everything that is not “self” and to be presented naked in facing the loving person in the most authentic –uncovered- presentation of self. The authenticity of "love making" is performed in nakedness. The lover struggles against his impulsive need to be presented as an excellent “feint-image” that his genuine natural image is not. Finally, experience of true love (eros) drives the lover into realisation of fighting against self, not in a "struggle to get away of being created" imperfect, but in a struggle of being naked.

The “love making” transformation is not a transformation of “being”, but a transformation of “living”.

Likewise, the life of Saint Alipios was a struggle to face God in the nakedness of his human nature. This is called by Fathers, “manic eros”, and it is a relationship that is initiated by God, as He is the First to move towards us, in a “manic” pursuit of a personal love meeting with us. Once the flame of “eros” for God finds place in the human heart, the lover is “struggling” to present himself "naked". (Luke 12:49) I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?

Once he achieves the meeting in "nakedness", the lover of God, would rather die than let the embracement of Loved One.

It is a strange thing, but stylites Saints of Church stayed in Gods “arms”, as naked natures, for many years until the time they “slept” in Christ.

Of course this, “erotic” relation with God is not the natural human erotic relationship, as it is an uncreated Energy of God, in which man also partakes. Nevertheless Fathers of Church used this analogy of human eros, as a human way to express the participation into the Glory of God.

As we arrived in this point, talking about "good" and "evil", I wonder, with you brother Byron: "what is the meaning of 'good' and 'evil'" in the context of personal relation of 'eros' ?

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Byron,

You can read the full context at this link which should be very helpful.

http://www.monachos.net/patristics/klimakos_repentance.shtml


On Repentance that Leads to Joy
The Spirituality of St John Klimakos

"Repentance seems to be a concept most sorely misunderstood in our modern day. It has come to mean sorrow, or regret for sin; an acknowledgement of wrong and the heartfelt feeling of penitence by which it is accompanied. But while these are certainly valid and essential elements of repentance, they are far from capturing the full depth of the Fathers’ understanding of this act. Repentance in the patristic tradition is not something relegated to the emotions—a mere sorrow or grief, no matter how intense or sincere. It is instead a full and active course upon which the whole human person engages; a true act of metanoe/w, of ‘changing one’s mind or purpose’. We see in this very definition an element that pushes beyond the emotional: sorrow, mourning, pe/nqoj, all are integral parts of true repentance, but they must be of the character that prompts change in the repentant person. One must not simply grieve, but must go from grief ‘and sin no more’. Repentance is an act of change, where the pin-prick of compunction (kata/nucij) inspires man to move out of his habits of sin, and into a purer, more Godly life."

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Fr Raphael, presumably a saint like St Alipios is one who struggled to free himself and be freed from the bonds of fallen nature; in other words, to render the Image visible by doing violence to its distortion. Is this correct? If this is so, my question would then be, how do we know or have any clue as to what kind of "violence" it is necessary to do to our fallen nature? St Alipios lived on a pillar; how do I know whether this, or something else, is required of me?

Here is the verse from the Gospels in which Christ uses the phrase "suffereth violence".


Matthew 11:12
And from the days of John the Baptist until now, the Kingdom of Heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

About this Theophylact in his commentary on the Gospel of St Matthew says:


Christ...strongly urges them to believe in Him, showing that many are by force aquiring the kingdom of heaven, that is, faith in Him. And there is need of great force, for in order to leave father and mother and to despise one's own life, how much force is needed?

In other words what Theophylact says (and he often is basing what he says almost verbatim from the commentaries of St John Chrysostom) is that we must strongly exert our will in order to aquire the Kingdom; and our will must be grounded in faith in God. So we are talking about that aspect of the human image which the Fathers consider most closely to resemble its Creator- the will.

The will though must be used with discernment otherwise we will be led to self-destruction rather than to salvation. We will think we are doing God's work when in reality we will be engaging in a very human effort & will arrive at something very distorted.

Of course though the question of discernment brings us naturally to the question of the level of asceticism in our life. This is usually what the question means for us in the most immediate sense & which affects us most deeply. As Orthodox Christians it is natural & proper to continually ask how ascetic our life should be.

The answer to this is that the asceticism of our life is part & parcel of the life that Christ has already led us to. In other words it is not theoretical but real.

I remeber once on Mt Athos I was talking to a monk about how dreadful it could feel to read St Isaac of Syria comparing his angelic state to one's own utter poverty. Softly smiling he explained that we read such things to bring us to humility. In other words- or at least this is how I took it- if we read St Isaac or read of St Alipios we are not so much being called by God to copy their exact acts of self-denial. Rather we are by reading of them to be inspired to follow the level of self-denial in our own life that God has called us to. So if we read of a stylite we can be inspired to endure standing through the Church services without complaining. Or if we read of a saint fasting without eating anything for days on end we can be inspired to follow faithfully the daily fasts set before us by the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Markus]

Hi Byron !

The first couple existed in eternity with God in the garden of Eden. There was no such things as evil,or at least Adam and Eve did not know what evil was. Things were all good.

The bible tells us that God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground--trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. But in the middle of the garden were two significant trees: the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of God and evil. God told Adam he was free to eat from any tree in the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But Adam and Eve did not listen. They ate fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and something terrible happened. For the first time, things were no longer "all good".Humankind "new" both good and evil. The Hebrew word for know here is the same word that scriptures uses when it says that Adam "knew" Eve in the sexual sense (Gen.4:1 kjv). It refers to the total experience of knowing. This experience of knowing evil--and therefore pain--is what God had tried to protect people from. He knew that it would hurt.

Nevertheless,Eve was deceived by Satan.Satan held out the apple of omniscience and wisdom (Gen.3:6), and the first couple received evil and pain.

Imagine for a moment, the situation. God had created a perfect place with perfect creatures to live in eternity. And suddenly, evil arrived on the scene. What did God do?

God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever. So the Lord God banished him from the garden of eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the garden of eden cherubim and flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life" (Gen.3:23-24). God moved immediately to protect humankind from being in a state of eternal isolation, experiencing pain for a very long time. To protect Adam and Eve from eternal pain, he drove them out of eternity, guarded eternity with a cherubim,and sent them to a new place called redemptive time, where we live now . Here God could fix the problem; he could undo the effects of the fall. He could redeem his creation,and then bring humankind back into eternity after it was again holy and blameless.

What an awesome plan! He even gives a clue in Genesis 3:15 about how he would accomplish this: The womans offspring would eventually crush the serpent´s head, a promise fulfilled in Christ´s victory over Satan. No wonder the writer of Hebrews calls it "so great a salvation". God not onley kept us from eating from the tree that would have thrust us into eternal pain, he drove us into a place where he would have the time to fix us and bring us back into relationship with him!

Philosophers and physicists have for centuries debated the nature of time, but for our purpose, let´s define redemptive time as"an incubator that exists for the purpose of redemption." It is a place where God can lovingly fix what is wrong. It is a place where evil temporarily exists while God does his work.

Think of it another way. God has a sick creation. He needs to do the surgery. Thus, he places us in the operating room of redemptive time. Into our veins he pumps the life-giving blood of grace and truth. During surgery, he excises evil and brings the renewed patient back into eternity in a holy state. We don´t know how long this surgery will last. We only know that we are expected to participate actively in our own surgery, and we don´t get any anesthesia for the procedure. That´s why growing up in to the image of God often hurts so much.

Redeptive time, an essential ingredient to growth, will not last for ever. Paul says that we need to make the best possible use of time, for we don´t have much: "Be very careful, then, how you live--not as unwise, but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, beacause the days are evil" (Eph.5:15-16). Scripture tells us that God will at some point put an end to this redemptive time and usher in the return of eternity.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Fr Raphael,

Thank you for clarifying the Christian use of the will and the beneficial way of reading the lives of ascetic saints.

In Christ
Byron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

The following addresses a question Byron brought up yesterday about how the Holy Spirit works. And in an interesting way I think it also refers to a point Fr George was making about healing.

The quote is from The Feasts of the Lord by Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos; chap 12- Pentecost.


The Fathers teach that while the Holy Spirit is active in the whole of creation and in all people, nevertheless each person partakes of Its energies in accordance with his receptivity. One must have a receptive organ in order to receive the manifold gifts of the Holy Spirit.

St. Maximos the Confessor, referring to this, says that the saints aquire different gifts of grace not by their natural power, but by divine power. All the gifts of grace are given by the Holy Spirit but this happens according to their receptivity. The Holy Spirit does not inspire wisdom in the saints without their having the nous that receives wisdom, nor knowledge if there is no power of reason, nor faith without the nous and reason being informed about the things to come, nor gifts of healing, without natural love towards men. This means that the saints receive the gifts of theology, gifts of knowledge, gifts of healing, if there is an organ to recieve this gift.

In other words it is not correct to maintain that there is a neutral gift of healing, reason, etc. A person must be grounded in a moral reality.

I am sure we have all met the 'rational man' who was so disturbed by the passions that he was in fact irrational. Or the 'healer' who from lack of compassion healed little.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Thank you Markus for the insightful account of the Genesis myth.

Whichever way it's looked at, it seems that Christians are obliged to accept that this is currently an imperfect world, and we are currently imperfect creatures; furthermore, if we love God and care for ourselves, we are called to do something about this state of imperfection.

Metropolitan Hierotheos makes an interesting point about the "receptivity" that needs to exist prior to being influenced by - allowing oneself to be influenced by - the energy of the Holy Spirit. The question then arises whether possessing that "receptive organ" is the result our own efforts, or whether God put it there in the first place. Surely for the Christian all is attributable to God, except sin.

What a terrible sting to pride all this is! Even if I accept that nothing I own is mine, how can I then summon the strength to do anything good, since I am nothing in myself? And if the only thing I do own is my sin, am I then not tempted to hold on to that, however painful it is, as at least being mine? That might be why people find the unhappiness they are familiar with more comfortable to stick with than the happiness that is unknown to them...

Or am I thinking about it all wrong again?!
Thank you for your patience...

In Christ
Byron

[Leandros]

And if the only thing I do own is my sin, am I then not tempted to hold on to that, however painful it is, as at least being mine?

So, is everything sin and non-sin - "our sin" and "God's non-sin" - and nothing more beyond that?

Is that all that IS ?

Is the real issue of "what is mine?" or "what can I do by myself?"

The answer to both questions does not answer the question of "who am I?"

"what is mine?" is a question of my natural condition.

"what can I do by myself?" is a question of the actions of my natural condition.

I can own nothing and do nothing by myself and to be in a perfect relation with God. Actually it is the only way that guides us in perfection of God.

Matthew 19:21
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Evil, is "evil" because it does not let us become "bankrupt".

Good, is "good" because it guides us in "bankruptcy".

Which of the two do we find to be our pleasure ? The answer to this question is "who we are" !