Hidden forces and meanings in human actions

[David Dietrich]

Is it possible that all the activities of man are made possible only by spiritual powers? To put it another way, are all the great works of humanity throughout the ages not man's at all but owe their existence solely to the working of spiritual powers through human bodies? To take an example, when a person looks at a hill and the idea of a great fortress begins to form in his head is that idea truly his or was it inspired by a spiritual power? And when the workmen toil up the hill to build the fortress does their will to work spring from themselves or from the spiritual entities that inspired the building in the first place? Does man have any power to think something that has never been imagined by any other human or spiritual being before and to carry it out without their aid? When Genghis Kan conquered his empire, was it his idea, his genius, his strength, will, energy, and motivation that carried the event forward or was not the idea, the intellect, the strength, will, energy and motivation all endowed and inspired by invisible forces?

If it is true that all human activity is inspired and given reality by "supra-real" forces then does it not follow that every sensation each of us has would be filled with meaning? If each time we move our head and look at a wisp of mist moving across a field the thought, the movement, and the sight were all inspired by hidden forces then would they have not done it for a reason? On the other hand, if they did not, then was that meandering gaze merely the lolling off to sleep of an old sinner to whom the sight had no more silent message than any other mundane experience?

[Herman Blaydoe]

The concept that Orthodoxy espouses, I believe, is found in the meaning of the word synergia. Are you familiar with it?

[Nicolaj]

Don't be mistaken and try to find here an excuse for actions which lead to sin, by saying that was not me, that was the hidden force which moved me!

We are all responsible for our actions and inspiration might come from some other source, evil or good that has to be seen, but that is not the ultimate factor! when we come at judgement day for his tribunal we have to take responsibility for our actions and deeds.

In Christ, Nicolaj

[Owen Jones]

Rather than stating the same principle in two different ways, these are two contradictory statements:

"Is is possible that all the activities of man are made possible only by spiritual powers? To put it another way, are all the great works of humanity throughout the ages not man's at all but owe their existence solely to the working of spiritual powers through human bodies?"

[Nicolaj]

Yeah, like we just are string puppets doing what others like us to do.

Something I dreamed of as a child to have some ants who where intelligent enough to built what I like and do what I want them to do.

Nicolaj

[Karena Hryniuk]

Is is possible that all the activities of man are made possible only by spiritual powers? To put it another way, are all the great works of humanity throughout the ages not man's at all but owe their existence solely to the working of spiritual powers through human bodies? To take an example, when a person looks at a hill and the idea of a great fortress begins to form in his head is that idea truly his or was it inspired by a spiritual power? And when the workmen toil up the hill to build the fortress does their will to work spring from themselves or from the spiritual entities that inspired the building in the first place? Does man have any power to think something that has never been imagined by any other human or spiritual being before and to carry it out without their aid? When Genghis Kan conquered his empire, was it his idea, his genius, his strength, will, energy, and motivation that carried the event forward or was not the idea, the intellect, the strength, will, energy and motivation all endowed and inspired by invisible forces?

If it is true that all human activity is inspired and given reality by "supra-real" forces then does it not follow that every sensation each of us has would be filled with meaning? If each time we move our head and look at a wisp of mist moving across a field the thought, the movement, and the sight were all inspired by hidden forces then would they have not done it for a reason? On the other hand, if they did not, then was that meandering gaze merely the lolling off to sleep of an old sinner to whom the sight had no more silent message than any other mundane experience?

To get any straight answer on this question David, you're probably going to have to explain yourself a bit further. Like what exactly do you mean by "Spiritual Powers" and "supra-real forces"?

I would not even attempt to answer this question, simply because I came from the Outside-In and tend to get a whoosh of backlash on various posts such as these. Sitting back with a tea and waiting for the drama...

In Christ
Karena

[David Dietrich]

I'll see if I can't boil this idea down more scientifically.

The core of my idea is that human beings are incapable of creating their own ideas from nothing.

This, in turn, implies that all our actions are basically inspired and given motivation by non-human sources that are capable of truly original thought.

Saying that we are incapable of truly original thought is not the same as saying that we have no responsibility for "our" thoughts because it is our choice to accept and act on the thoughts with which we are inspired.

These "non-human sources" that are capable of original thought are angelic and divine.

This all leads to the conclusion that everything that man has ever thought, and ever thought that he has carried out has been inspired by and carried out through the inspiration of spiritual forces.

I postulate that ideas are not only inspired by, but are continually upheld by spiritual forces because to enact an inspired idea requires a continued process of thought combined with action. The action, however, is subservient to the thought because there can be no action without the thought behind it.

[Antonios]

I'll see if I can't boil this idea down more scientifically.

The core of my idea is that human beings are incapable of creating their own ideas from nothing.

This, in turn, implies that all our actions are basically inspired and given motivation by non-human sources that are capable of truly original thought.

Saying that we are incapable of truly original thought is not the same as saying that we have no responsibility for "our" thoughts because it is our choice to accept and act on the thoughts with which we are inspired.

These "non-human sources" that are capable of original thought are angelic and divine.

This all leads to the conclusion that everything that man has ever thought, and ever thought that he has carried out has been inspired by and carried out through the inspiration of spiritual forces.

I postulate that ideas are not only inspired by, but are continually upheld by spiritual forces because to enact an inspired idea requires a continued process of thought combined with action. The action, however, is subservient to the thought because there can be no action without the thought behind it.

Dear David,

Thank you for the post. It is very thought provoking. They way I understand it, and I may very easily be wrong and hope to be corrected if I am, is that Adam was created in order to share in God's creation, as an active participant in it (not solely as an observer). God had already given him the responsibility of naming the creatures and as care-keeper of the Garden of Eden. The most ultimate expression of these loving gifts from God was the freedom of will.

After the fall, God said "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" Adam was then covered with a coat of skin, became overtly material (from whence he first came) and his days were numbered and his life corrupted, unto decay and eventual death. This was an act of protection of Creation on behalf of God, and when taking account of the fall's eternal implications, an act of mercy of God on our behalf.

In the state we are in now, God, from His over-abundant love, continues to grant us this greatest gift of freedom of will, with the caveat that the life we have here, and how we use our will, will determine our verdict on Judgment Day. God has provided us with the canvas, the paint, and the paintbrush, and we create our own painting. He is our Muse if we allow Him. He is our Model if we want Him to be. And what Beauty that can be painted! or sculpted! or written! or played! The angles rejoice and aid in these offerings to God! The Holy Spirit filling all!

On the other hand, we must not forget that there is in fact a spiritual war occurring. The demons also can enter the mind and hearts and creative works of people, and when it results in blasphemy and distraction and darkening of the Light of God, then they rejoice in these offerings to satan. True, they incite and inspire, but it is we who create, not them. We are ultimately responsible for the things we create and do. Adam blamed Eve and then God for making Eve, and it was to no avail. Putting the blame on demons before the awesome Judgment Seat of Christ will probably not be the best defense.

From what I remember reading, our thoughts are either our own or suggestions from spiritual powers. Discernment is needed to differentiate where they originate from. Determining whether these thoughts align with the message of the Gospels or the commandments of Christ or confiding with a spiritual father are the greatest ways of determining the source. Prayer, of course, is the most powerful aid.

In conclusion, being in the image and likeness of God, we too create. Whether from nothing, I leave this to the theologians and whoever else could help answer this. The implimenting of these thoughts, the action as you mention, is completely ours, for good or for bad.

I hope this wasn't too confusing. I hope others could also provide some thoughts. (no pun intended!)

In Christ,
Antonios

[Father David Moser]

I'll see if I can't boil this idea down more scientifically.

The core of my idea is that human beings are incapable of creating their own ideas from nothing.

This, in turn, implies that all our actions are basically inspired and given motivation by non-human sources that are capable of truly original thought.


Is this your own idea or do you draw it from other sources (well other than the "non-human" ones)? Is there any patristic or even philosophical basis for your idea here? It certainly does not seem to be an Orthodox idea at all and hence if you are trying to fit it into Orthodox tradition, it's not going to work since the a priori assumptions are incompatible.

Fr David Moser

[Mary]

I'll see if I can't boil this idea down more scientifically.

The core of my idea is that human beings are incapable of creating their own ideas from nothing.

This, in turn, implies that all our actions are basically inspired and given motivation by non-human sources that are capable of truly original thought.

Saying that we are incapable of truly original thought is not the same as saying that we have no responsibility for "our" thoughts because it is our choice to accept and act on the thoughts with which we are inspired.

These "non-human sources" that are capable of original thought are angelic and divine.

This all leads to the conclusion that everything that man has ever thought, and ever thought that he has carried out has been inspired by and carried out through the inspiration of spiritual forces.

I postulate that ideas are not only inspired by, but are continually upheld by spiritual forces because to enact an inspired idea requires a continued process of thought combined with action. The action, however, is subservient to the thought because there can be no action without the thought behind it.

You just disproved your own postulation, since this is quite an original thought! =)

[Herman Blaydoe]

The core of my idea is that human beings are incapable of creating their own ideas from nothing.

I would say this idea violates the idea of synergy. I suggest you do some research.

[David Dietrich]

You just disproved your own postulation, since this is quite an original thought! =) ;) lol


I would say this idea violates the idea of synergy. I suggest you do some research.

As I posted in the other forum where your giving synergy a boost, my understanding of synergy is that God influences the will of man, but never overrides it and only works with it to the degree to which the will of man is willing. Either my understanding is off the wall or this does not require any truly original thought on the part of man.

[Antonios]

;) lol

As I posted in the other forum where your giving synergy a boost, my understanding of synergy is that God influences the will of man, but never overrides it and only works with it to the degree to which the will of man is willing. Either my understanding is off the wall or this does not require any truly original thought on the part of man.

Dear David,

I would say that having thoughts which conform to the will of God are quite original, since every individual is unique and must act upon those thoughts in response to their unique circumstance and situation.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Owen Jones]

Well, something is not true simply because it is Orthodox. It is quite the other way around. Here is my best shot at the Orthodox understanding of ideas. They all pre-existed in the Mind of God. Hence, there is no original idea, man-made or otherwise. If one looks closely one can see all so-called modernist ideas in the Bible. For example, one can easily depict Christ as a radical empiricist (I speak only of the things I have seen and heard).

I think it is important at this point to understand that ideas are not things. They don't exist as such. They are not lying around waiting to be picked up.

Rather, ideas are a symbolic expression of experiences that are held in common, otherwise we could not talk about them in a way that other people could possibly understand. Classically, theologians would use mathematics and geometry as perfect examples of this. Euclid did not create geometry, but uncovered it, as it were. By developing his geometric proofs, he also was aware that others could read and study Euclid and understand his proofs. So they were no sui generis. In fact, he goes to great pains in his introduction to develop a theoretical justification for God as the author of these proofs, because the proofs cannot prove themselves. There have to be certain givens as a starting point, outside of geometry itself. So Christian theology is predicated not just on the history of the Jews, but on the rationality of all ideas that pre-exist in God's mind. So rationality became a major force in deciding various theological controversies.

As for forces and powers that influence human intellect and human decision-making -- both good and evil, this is a matter of holding these forces in proper balance and tension with human freedom, and not veering to one extreme or the other for the sake of some need for a calculating logic. God does overpower human beings at times. He uses force and coercion to work his will. At other times it is far more subtle to the point where people begin to wonder whether or not there even is a God. The tension between human freedom and Divine Will is very fragile and his held together by faith, not by some idea that purports to resolve or overcome this tension.

It is the "modern" sin if you will to claim that we are in control of everything and have the right to do anything we wish, or that we are in control of nothing and are subservient to a Fuhrer. The two positions are really opposite sides of the same coin.

[David Dietrich]

The idea that all ideas pre-exist in God is logically appealing, but it forces us to the conclusion that God, the epitome of goodness, thinks evil things. On the other hand, if God did not think evil thoughts, then the Devil must be the ultimate source of all evil ideas which makes him a sort of counter creator.

As to the point about thoughts being nothing more than experiences. I must point out that in order to create an experience there must be an idea about the experience. So, for example, if I have a thought that is nothing more than a reaction to some man passing me in the street that entails that the man who passed me and inspired the thought must have had a thought of his own that got him started on creating the "passing experience."

At best this seems to boil down a domino effect where God gives the first man an idea and that begins a whole series of actions that inspire more actions etc. But even this seems invalid to me because this process of inspiration requires that the observer of an action have an original thought about that action.

I certainly agree that each individual has very unique reactions to his thoughts and experiences, but that does not violate my idea that people do nothing but react and cannot create from nothing a completely original idea.

[Antonios]

Dear Owen,

I'm having a bit of trouble believing every thought finds it's source in God or pre-existed there. It may be true, but I hope you might explain this a little more and perhaps cite a reference to this theory.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Owen Jones]

It's called divine foreknowledge. It does not mean, heaven forbid, that God thinks evil thoughts. But he certainly knew when He created us that He would have to save us. Right?

[Rick H.]

The only other viable option I am aware of is the dreaded open theism--thanks but not thanks!

[Antonios]

It's called divine foreknowledge. It does not mean, heaven forbid, that God thinks evil thoughts. But he certainly knew when He created us that He would have to save us. Right?

Dear Owen,

I agree. God has divine foreknowledge and He knew he would have to save us. This is a profound mystery to us. To create us, knowing He would then suffer death on a cross for us, is the most supreme demonstration of Love anything in existence can provide.

The connection between God's foreknowledge and our thoughts is where I'm having some difficulty. God, the Creator of time, Who is outside of time, knows the thoughts that we formulate and will formulate. This, however, does not mean He is the initiator of these thoughts or the source of these thoughts.

When I give my 3 year old child some crayons and a sheet of paper and tell him to draw me, I know he will not create a realistic or photographic image of me. Of course I will cherish my purple head and 8 green fingers! but I know he has certain limitations. I am the provider of these materials for him, and if I were outside of time, I'd know he would create me with a purple head and 8 green fingers.

But knowing that, I do not stop him, because I (his father) want to give him the greatest gift from love I can- freedom.

The notion of free will is what is most important here, because there is no Divine Love, made in the Image and Likeness of God, if not done freely. This is not limited to the decisions we make and the actions we do, but also to the thoughts we formulate. God has given us the ability to freely think about whatever we want to. He did not put the idea in my head to cheat on my test, or to ignore another's plea for help. He is not the source of the murder's plans or the rapist's fantasies. These are the gifts we offer to Him. These are the products of our own design. These are the distorted images of Him we draw with the materials He provided.

At the same token, when we freely follow his commandments and allow Him to enter our minds and hearts in faith and love, He teaches us His will. Our will begins to conform to His Divine Will, and thus the process of deification begins, making True Life possible.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Owen Jones]

Well, again, I think we have some philosophical detritus that needs to be swept away before we can make any headway, having to do with aesthetics. Is an icon a realistic representation? Is it an exact portrait of a thing or event? Does it lack perspective? Orthodoxy is, above all, an aesthetic experience. It is the experience of God's Beauty applied to ourselves. If you want to create a fist fight in a social gathering, just challenge people on their aesthetic assumptions sometime.

Regarding ideas, let's go back to a fundamental Orthodox premise, which is the absolute distinction made between the created and Uncreated. We are creatures, not creators. We do not create ideas. We simply embody them. There is a basic limit to ideas. Ideas are not infinite. We cannot just go around inventing, creating new ideas. All ideas are based on something that came before, and there is a limit to them, because they were created.

There are limited alternatives as to why the world is screwed up. Either there is no God, or God is evil, or God is incompetent, or we screwed up and continue to do so and are paying the price. There is not an infinite set of ideas for us to invent and play around with to explain why things are the way they are.


Which leads back to some of the objections raised above, does that mean that God created evil? Does that mean that we are mindless robots in which God implants ideas, much as my computer operating system was implanted there by a programmer? We are forced to answer no to both questions, but must avoid in our response an answer that wraps everything up in a nice, tidy, logical bow. Because the answer lies in a true aesthetic appreciation. It is not a problem to be solved but a mystery to be lived. Otherwise, we wouldn't need faith. Faith involves not getting the response from God that we are demanding, that would necessarily absolve us from the need for faith.

[David Dietrich]

I may have said this earlier, but I will repeat now with more conviction: man has free will. I believe the Father's have said that we are not responsible for the thoughts that appear in our mind, only for those which we "entertain." How could this be possible if we were the creators ex nihilo of all our imaginations? If we were some sort of minor demi-gods that can create new ideas from nothing, then we would be responsible for those ideas.

If we are not the originators of our imaginations, then who is? We have quickly developed the consensus that God is not the originator of our perverted thoughts, but only of those which are good. If this is the case, then we have no other option but to say that the Devil is the creator of the evil thoughts which we have. Does this then mean that he is a second creator? Bringing evil out of nothing? I think it is impossible for evil to come from nothing because of its nature; instead, these evil thoughts which Satan creates are formulated from pre-existing, good thoughts which God brought from nothing. Thus, they are not "created" but "perverted" from forms already in existence.

Finally, these thoughts, good and evil, are placed in our minds and we must choose to reject or accept. This choice is our damnation or salvation.

[Antonios]

...Which leads back to some of the objections raised above, does that mean that God created evil? Does that mean that we are mindless robots in which God implants ideas, much as my computer operating system was implanted there by a programmer? We are forced to answer no to both questions, but must avoid in our response an answer that wraps everything up in a nice, tidy, logical bow.

Dear Owen,

I would disagree and say that we are not forced to answer no to both question. You have been freely given the choice to make up your own mind on this. This is something you have thought about and created and forced yourself to believe. (I also force myself to believe this as well :)

The tying up in a neat, logical, tidy bow seems to me to be the direction that David is going, which is that the thoughts in our minds are not our own, but has their source from somewhere else. This might be true for certain thoughts, especially evil ones which actually originate from our hearts as the Lord said. But, I still maintain that God has given us the power to create. This is, of course, a limited power when one takes into consideration the whole of the cosmos. In other words, the Sovereignty of the Lord is not threatened. Still, this is a crucially important power for the individual in the life they have been granted. "You could do nothing if not for me" does not exactly translate to "I have put the thoughts in your head of what to do". Did Adam reflexly eat the forbidden fruit? Did he not at all think about what he was doing when he outright disobeyed his Creator? Was God thinking for him then, or put the seed of pride in his mind?

When we are told we have been created in the Image and Likeness of the Creator, what does that imply to you?

PS: I am not avoiding the fundamental Orthodox premise that He is the Creator and we the created. I am simply stating that if God wills us to be the creator of thoughts, even novel ones, than it is within His power to do this without any threat to Himself. You are attempting to draw lines of distinction between created and Uncreated. I am saying there is no limit to God's power.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Rick H.]

When we are told we have been created in the Image and Likeness of the Creator, what does that imply to you?




How one answers this question matters very much to this conversation and just about every other one on the boards in this forum. The more we limit our response to this question the more blurred things become.

[Father David Moser]

I may have said this earlier, but I will repeat now with more conviction: man has free will. I believe the Father's have said that we are not responsible for the thoughts that appear in our mind, only for those which we "entertain." How could this be possible if we were the creators ex nihilo of all our imaginations? If we were some sort of minor demi-gods that can create new ideas from nothing, then we would be responsible for those ideas.

If we are not the originators of our imaginations, then who is?

Perhaps you are trying too hard to assign a single source to our thoughts. The fathers also suggest that some thoughts arise from our own minds while others are suggestions from without (these can be either the temptations of demons - te truly evil thoughts - or they can be the promptings of the Holy Spirit towards righteousness.) By assigning an either/or, black/white condition to the origin of our thoughts, we end up in such a difficult place as you find yourself.

Fr David Moser

[Owen Jones]

"There is nothing new under the sun."

[Antonios]

Dear Owen,

That is a very good response. In it's exact context, it does give major credence to your notion. Still, I agree with David that it then assigns responsibility to God for the evils and fallen state that we are in. Our faith stresses upon us being the absolute cause for the fall. Nowhere does God share any blame. So where do the thoughts of the rapist enter in? How would such thoughts exist within the Mind of God, let alone be the originator of? Is God the source from which they appeared? If this is true, if this is Orthodox Christian teaching, then I missed something and I will need many things to be explained.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Owen Jones]

Well, what you are insisting must be the case by virtue of logical necessity, cannot possibly be the case. If one wishes to resolve every paradox, there is no need for faith. Reality is paradoxical. Why would God create a world he knew he would have to save? That is a paradox that cannot be overcome by logic.

Theology is not a system that is designed to resolve paradoxes, but to reinforce them. The term was originally coined by Plato, who observed that the sophists believed that either a) there is no God or b) he does not have the power to save us or c) he can be bribed by sacrifices. Plato countered that none of these could possibly be true, and he called that recognition theology. It's something that he just knew, but resisted the temptation to "prove" it "objectively." Of major help to any Christian on the subject of truth is the Euthyphro in which Plato goes through every possible argument in defense of truth, including true belief backed by logical argument, and finds them all wanting. Truth is found in the experience of awe and wonder in the presence of the living God.

We might say in Orthodoxy that the truth of the pudding is in the eating of it.

[David Dietrich]

The nature of God is to create new things from nothing. I would expect something/one that is in His image to be able to create, but not from nothing. I ascribe the power of creation from nothing exclusively to God. Man can take various materials that he has been given and reform them, this is his creative act. The analogy to legos is easy and accurate here: children don't make legos, they make with them.

Why can we not apply this to ideas? I'm not tying the issue off in a neat, logical bow. I'm being quite open ended since all I'm saying is that man cannot create thoughts from nothing. That inevitably leads us to the conclusion that he can, at most, recombine thoughts that are prompted by his experiences/spirits.

Consider the hypothetical situation of a baby who is born in a void and is totally cut off from all physical and spiritual experience. Would that baby begin creating ideas? I don't think it could.

I like the issue Antonios brings up: where did Adam get the idea to transgress God? I'll go out on a limb here and say that it was Satan that gave him the idea. The sin was when Adam accepted the idea. Neither God nor Adam created that idea.

[Robert Hegwood]

Why wouldn't such a void baby create ideas? If his brain and body work he still has his own mind and body to think about. There are still fingers and toes to wiggle and wonder about. Initially though I doubt such a child would do much by way of contemplation. It would perceive its condition something other than what it ought to be and then cry. And if I'm not mistaken monastics by grace learn to leave behind ideation in their prayers and dwell in prayerful perception.

[Owen Jones]

Well, Orthodoxy has never taught that human beings are creators. We learn and discover things that were already there. Everything we know and learn builds on something that came before. The story of the Fall of man highlights this -- That man's sin is not irredeemable, and so Genesis depicts the fall as not something man thought up on his own, but man's fall is preceded by the fallen angel who rebelled against God in heaven who tricked the first man into a state of disobedience and then, in his embarrassment, lied about it. So Christ's victory is a victory over Satan's grip over man. So really Genesis 1 really begins with the question of what man is. What kind of creature is this? While he must take responsibility for his defiance of God, he is not really blameworthy. The situation is redeemable.

You have to have a beginning point for everything, and man's fall was preceded by a heavenly one.

[David Dietrich]

How can you leave the statement that man's fall was preceded by a heavenly one lying like that? That fact is merely the beginning of the hypothesis: that all human actions are "preceded" by "heavenly" actions. The implications of this are enormous. It totally changes our, or at least my, perception of the cosmos. The tower of babel, the printing press, the Bolshevik revolution, the discovery of America would have all been pre-formed on the supernatural level and only implemented by men. Thus, all of history becomes the war between God and Lucifer played out through human hands. Is this not a new revelation? Isn't this important? Or is it merely some point of Christian cosmology that I failed to catch?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I do not believe this is correct David. Man is created in the image & likeness of God to stand as microcosm at the center of creation, to tie together the material and immaterial, the Divine and created. It is within this context that the origin and end of the creation find their fulfillment with man standing at the center of God's providential purpose for the creation.

The existence of other powers, even of the contrary power of evil, can only work within this providential purpose that man in his freedom stands at the center of.

In Christ- Fr Raphael



How can you leave the statement that man's fall was preceded by a heavenly one lying like that? That fact is merely the beginning of the hypothesis: that all human actions are "preceded" by "heavenly" actions. The implications of this are enormous. It totally changes our, or at least my, perception of the cosmos. The tower of babel, the printing press, the Bolshevik revolution, the discovery of America would have all been pre-formed on the supernatural level and only implemented by men. Thus, all of history becomes the war between God and Lucifer played out through human hands. Is this not a new revelation? Isn't this important? Or is it merely some point of Christian cosmology that I failed to catch?

[David Dietrich]

I must not be grasping what you say because it seems what you just described is complementary to my postulation, not contradictory. You must remember first and foremost that I have never at any time , knowingly, denied the freedom of man. Does ma not tie together immaterial and material by being able to receive immaterial promptings and then manifest them in the material world as he chooses? In this way he would act as a conduit, or a filter whereby the immaterial powers are manifested through each human will on the material plane of existence.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

David Dietrich wrote:

Quote:I must not be grasping what you say because it seems what you just described is complementary to my postulation, not contradictory. You must remember first and foremost that I have never at any time, knowingly, denied the freedom of man.

Yet the issue of freedom according to the Patristic understanding is exactly what is central to this question. We must integrate this understanding with our own.

Thus man and creation according to the Patristic understanding are not 'conduits'. The understanding of man being created in the image & likeness of God means rather that we are co-creators, in pale image of God, thought, will and action, coming 'out of nothing' as it were. It is this last indeed which intrinsically links what we are and do to freedom.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Owen Jones]

With all due respect, I doubt the idea of man as co-creator is consistent with Patristic teaching. A true philosophical-theological anthropology is at the heart of the Church's understanding of God and God's way with man.

Man is a composite being, and is unique in that he participates at all levels of the hierarchy of being. That man is a conduit or channel for Grace does not require us to then posit man as a robot or automoton, because our openness (i.e. purity) and receptiveness is a factor.

The problem is one of balance. Reality is inherently paradoxical and any attempt to overcome or eliminate the paradox leads toward phariseeism on the one hand and gnosticism on the other.

There are many in depth treatises by the Fathers that attempt to deal with man's paradoxical (mysterious) nature. We are neither good nor evil but something in between. Grace and freedom are not separate entities but mysteriously work together.

[David Dietrich]

It seems, Fr. Raphael, you are saying that freedom cannot exist without the ability to create. If this is the case, then we have reached what I see to be the core of the issue. Does being in the image of God require that we have the same powers as He? I am thinking here specifically of the ability to create something from nothing. I would consider this to be more of a blasphemous usurpation of God rather than a beautiful imitation of Him because if this is the case, then within God's universe there can now arise billions upon billions of alternate, rival creations not made by God at all, but owing their existence solely to individual men. Granted, these creations will never be as expansive, or possibly even as "real" as the original, but they will be unacceptable rivals to God's status as Source and Father.

I still believe it to be a viable possibility that freedom lies in reaction, not creation. Each man is unique, and free in his will, which is that thing that determines his reaction. My idea is that man has no creative ability, but that his freedom and uniqueness lie in his reactions to incentives he receives from beyond himself.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Owen wrote:


With all due respect, I doubt the idea of man as co-creator is consistent with Patristic teaching. A true philosophical-theological anthropology is at the heart of the Church's understanding of God and God's way with man.

Man is a composite being, and is unique in that he participates at all levels of the hierarchy of being. That man is a conduit or channel for Grace does not require us to then posit man as a robot or automoton, because our openness (i.e. purity) and receptiveness is a factor.

The problem is one of balance. Reality is inherently paradoxical and any attempt to overcome or eliminate the paradox leads toward phariseeism on the one hand and gnosticism on the other.

There are many in depth treatises by the Fathers that attempt to deal with man's paradoxical (mysterious) nature. We are neither good nor evil but something in between. Grace and freedom are not separate entities but mysteriously work together.


I'm quite sure Owen that the idea of man as co-creator is fundamental to Patristic anthropology.

Of course using the word co-creator might raise some questions. But I'm only using this word in pale analogy of God's creating to suggest that inherently we think, will and act. This is creative in that it establishes something from ourselves but yet which is distinct. This is in the image of God Who creates. Thus we co-create alongside of God. At the same time though we do not create in the same sense as He does. The ground of what we create is in that which God does create. These two are mysteriously distinct.

As regards the use of the words conduit or channel I think this comes down to the question of freedom we are talking about. Perhaps it can be found as an image somewhere- but at first look it seems to convey the idea of an external activity regardless of the will of the 'conduit'.

Thus the one image that comes to mind is that of priesthood and sacrament when conduit or channel of grace is used by some I think. This is to convey the idea that the grace of the sacrament is active for the faithful even though the priest is sinful. This explanation however is only relative for indeed at some point the priest's sin, ie distorted free will, does affect how grace is conveyed. Which just brings us back I think to the point that freedom & grace are always necessarily linked.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

It seems, Fr. Raphael, you are saying that freedom cannot exist without the ability to create. If this is the case, then we have reached what I see to be the core of the issue. Does being in the image of God require that we have the same powers as He? I am thinking here specifically of the ability to create something from nothing.


This is exactly the point David; that our ability to create is something which both comes from God and is distinct from Him.

Our ability to create like Him 'out of nothing' (and I really don't want to make an issue about using these words. They only came to mind as I read this discussion in the past few days) is thus obviously not like the creative will of God. It is utterly distinct. But yet, it is its image in the sense that we can create out of ourselves that which is distinct from ourselves.

Again don't get me wrong. I'm not tying to present a system here. I'm only suggesting something poetically that is very important.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Robert Hegwood]

You might want to read JRR Tolkien's essay "Tree and Leaf" which is about man as "sub-creator".

If I am not mistaken I think the fathers make a distinction between creation out of nothing as did God at the beginning and man's part in creation as a co-creator or sub-creator, however one wishes to frame it. Create is used for the action of both God and man, but not quite the same thing is meant in all cases; man must create/shape/refashion out of that which has been given to him, God can do either. Since man is not self-existent his very being which is capable of creating has been given to him by God.

Consider this. Have you ever seen a hologram...a full on walk around hologram? You know that 3D image you see is projected out of a 2D image that exists on a piece of special film. Lets say it is an animated hologram of a man standing in a landscape painting a perspective image of the landscape before him. Which is the fuller reality, the projection or the film? Now consider that there is a growing body of evidence that suggests our very world...all we style as creation is actually a kind of hologram (something implied by the informational mapping capacity of the event horizon of a black hole (i think...maybe the surface...it was in the Scientific American a few months back). So here we have a perspective painting of a landscape by a painter who is a hologram projected from a flat image within an even greater "quantum" hologram..."projected" by "what we cannot say"...God maybe (It does potentially answer a few questions about us and us living and moving and having our being in Him). The painter was creative in making a painting, the engineers and artisans were creative in making a hologram of a painting painter, and God was certainly creative in making a world with engineers and artisans who could use their available resources to create a hologram.

This is a simplistic illustration I know, but keep thinking. What if by virtue of some technology that little holographic painter in his holographic world was free within bounds of his world...that is to say he could chose to paint his picture or not, walk around his landscape or not, etc. He was "made" to be a painter but was not compelled to be. So the little "maker" can make because he is made in the image of greater makers who are themselves made in the image of the Maker.

So if each is acting freely who ultimately made the little painting, the little painter, man, or God? God created all did He not, but at the subordinate levels of being each acted as a co-creator, each within his sphere as it were.

[David Dietrich]

I agree that man creates from that which is pre-created by God. My point focuses on how he creates, not from what, or if he creates. Where does man get the ideas for his "creations" (which are really only "rearrangements")? I must argue that to say man gets totally new ideas from nothing crosses into the sovereign realm of ex nihilo creation. Thus, it seems that man must be given his ideas from some other, more primary source. Then man chooses whether or not he likes the ideas he is given, and if he does, he implements these ideas in what we are calling "creations." This leaves his free will entirely intact.

[Effie Ganatsios]

How one answers this question matters very much to this conversation and just about every other one on the boards in this forum. The more we limit our response to this question the more blurred things become.

Doesn't this mean that our souls have been created "in the image and likeness of God". His Love, His Goodness, His Truth. An image = an icon = an image, a representation. Not our bodies but our souls, our intellect. This is what I believe. I have absolutely no idea if what I believe is theologically sound or not but anything else just does not make sense to me.

We have been given free will. We decide what kind of lives we will live. This has been said so clearly - Jesus knocks on the door. We open. Can anything be more clear?

Effie



Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me” (Revelation 3:20).

[Effie Ganatsios]

I just found this. http://www.stgeorgeserbian.us/darren03.htm

"Conclusion


When God created man, He created man in His own image and likeness. This is what distinguishes man from the rest of creation, and above all explains man's unique position in the cosmos. Whether the image of God in man is interpreted as man having dominion over all of the earth, focusing on man's intellect or man's spirit, body, and soul when explaining his personhood, seeing each human being as infinitely precious, etc., there are numerous ways to explain and understand the significance of man being created in the image of God. The fact is, because God created man in Him image, man was created with great potential. He was created pure, holy, passionless, and sinless. Only as a result of man's fall was this potential corrupted, but through the Incarnation, Jesus Christ has restored human nature to its fullest potential. This is the image that should shape the lives of Orthodox Christians. "

[Owen Jones]

Jesus also says, "compel them to come in." God is not averse to using coercion.

[Rick H.]

Doesn't this mean that our souls have been created "in the image and likeness of God". His Love, His Goodness, His Truth. An image = an icon = an image, a representation. Not our bodies but our souls, our intellect. This is what I believe. I have absolutely no idea if what I believe is theologically sound or not but anything else just does not make sense to me.

We have been given free will. We decide what kind of lives we will live. This has been said so clearly - Jesus knocks on the door. We open. Can anything be more clear?

Effie



Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me” (Revelation 3:20).


Dear Effie,

Just noticed this one as I was stumbling around the boards. I probably miss quite a few posts. I think you are in good shape with what you have written. For that matter who among us would claim to be in position to either limit or answer fully the question at hand? Along with your verse and Owen's, I think it is good to remember that we are told if we knock it will be opened unto us. So there's another picture to add to the album as it relates to both knocking and opening, seeking and finding, coming in or not. Now if we only had some references to the Door Himself, we would be good to go!

In Christ,
Rick

[Nina]

Jesus also says, "compel them to come in." God is not averse to using coercion.

No. God can not force us to love Him.

[Paul Cowan]

True Nina,

But He can put us in front of Himself to help us decide. (one way or the other)

Paul

[Nina]

Dear Paul,

God places Himself in front of everyone because He loves all. God gives His grace and then it is up to us since we have the freedom to reject it, or accept it; close our eyes in front of Him, or allow Him to renew our sight. However according to the Fathers these two freedoms are of a different quality.

As in the case of Adam and Eve versus that of Panagia's.

Fathers have said that Panagia had the freedom to reject the message of God (during Annunciation) and not obey God's Will. "...whenever man is in such a dilemma, precisely because he has freedom he can say yes or no". However in contrast to Adam and Eve, Panagia did obey the will of God. And Metropolitan Hierotheos writes that Panagia "could not refuse, not because she did not have freedom, but because she had real freedom. St. John of Damaskinos distinguishes between natural will and the will of choice. A person has the will of choice when he is characterized by ignorance of something, by doubt, and finally by the inability to choose. He is wavering about what to do. A person has natural will when he is led in a natural way, without vacillation, without ignorance, to put the truth into action. [...] It follows then that natural will is the perfection of nature, while the will of choice is the imperfection of nature." pp.28-29 Feasts of the Lord

[Andreas Moran]

St Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus was pretty coercive, I always think!

[Nina]

St Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus was pretty coercive, I always think!

I do not think coercive is a word we would want to use for God in relation to the topic we are speaking about. It is also the will, the natural will of St. Paul who recognized the grace and accepted it (not to mention that he was already a pious believer of Jewish religion). Judas for instance was invited and was in front of Him (literally) all the time, but he exercised the will of choice as we know.

If God will coerce us into our salvation we will not belong in Paradise. I remember reading something along these lines from the Fathers, but I can't recall where.

Maybe we can say that God invites. In the case of Saint Paul, He revealed part of His glory and St. Paul already a believer accepted the grace, thank God. Because it could have happened also like in the case of Julian the Apostate. How many times God invited him? Fires from the ground at the Temple for instance?

[Andreas Moran]

I suppose the reason God does not appear to people to convert them is that this would tend to force them to believe. I mean, who would doubt if he had a 'road to Damascus' conversion? Either that or he would think he'd gone completely bonkers. Then again, as Nina suggests, it's possible that even after his singular conversion, Paul could later have backslided (or is it 'backslid?).

[Nina]

I suppose the reason God does not appear to people to convert them is that this would tend to force them to believe.

Yes you are right; and like Christ said: "Blessed is he who did not see but believed." Belief, faith are very important if we wish to follow the will of God and not self-will. As St. Tikhon of Zadonsk says:



Faith makes a well-intentioned heart. "Faith is the mother of a good will," says St. Ambrose, therefore where there is no well-intentioned heart, there is also no faith. p.60, Journey to Heaven

and


A heart which is obedient and in conformity with the will of God is good. A heart which opposes and is contrary to the will of God is evil. Ibid.

For these reasons St. Tikhon urges us to purify our hearts. Because, he says, if we do not, we are exposed then to temptations -which he compares to emetic medicine- which God allows so we can see our heart's real condition and correct it. If we are exposed in many temptations he says we should not become despondent, but thank God for giving us the possibility of knowing our impurities and for cleansing our hearts.

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Nina,

Wonderful teachings from St Tikhon Zadonskiy - do you have the details of the book from which these pearls are taken?

In Christ,
Andreas.

[Nina]

Dear Nina,

Wonderful teachings from St Tikhon Zadonskiy - do you have the details of the book from which these pearls are taken?

In Christ,
Andreas.

After the first quote it is this book's title: Journey to Heaven and the page number is 60. I did not have time at that point to write all of the details of the book though, sorry...

Here:

Journey to Heaven: Counsels on the particular duties of every Christian by Saint Tikhon of Zadonsk Bishop of Voronezh and Elets

Printed with the Blessing of Archbishop Laurus of Syracuse and Holy Trinity Monastery
Translated by Fr. George D. Lardas
Published by Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, N.Y. 13361-0036

ISBN 0-88465-046-4

In Russian (from what I read here) the same book is on its 43rd edition and the title is: Nastavlenie o sobstvennykh vsjakago khristianina dolzhnostjakh

[Andreas Moran]

Thank you, Nina.

[Owen Jones]

Regading hidden forces and meanings, what God apparently does, if applied to humans, we would naturally call some of these things coercive and manipulative. This does not mean that His action do not also require coupling with our assent. Why does everything have to be either/or? One of the foundations of logic is that, just because A is true does not mean that B is false.

[Paul Cowan]

One of the foundations of logic is that, just because A is true does not mean that B is false.

I am better with examples. But what Owen says is very true. All humans breath air. But not all that breath air are humans.

[Nina]

I am better with examples. But what Owen says is very true. All humans breath air. But not all that breath air are humans.

I agree with Owen too. But I guess I do not like the word coerce about God.

God warns us. God wants our salvation. God threatens us. But still we have our freedom with which He does not interfere. Also God can not be contained by logic.

[Nina]

After His Resurrection Christ appeared to the Myrrh-bearing women and to His Disciples. Some people wondered why Christ did not appear to all the people and especially to His crucifiers and those who denied His Resurrection, to make them believe in Him.

When a person knows the essence of Orthodox theology, he cannot ask such questions, because he knows clearly that Christ's appearing is never for spectacular reasons and for man's coercion. God's manifestation has a definite purpose and a deep reason.

In the first place it must be pointed out that Christ does not want to compel anyone to believe. God's manifestation to man is a crucial point in his life. In the next life, at Christ's Second Coming, everyone will see him, but for those prepared and purified God will be light, while for the impure He will be a punishment. That will happen also in this case. Therefore it was out of love and charity that God did not appear to those who denied and crucified Him.

Christ's appearance in glory is solely to guide those who have suitably prepared themselves for deification and glorification. The Disciples had been prepared and that is why Christ said shortly before His Passion: "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you" (Jn. 15,3). For three years the disciples, hearing the word of God and apprenticed in the mysteries of the Kingdom of heaven, expelling demons, went through the process of purification. So they were fit for deification and were capable of partaking of the grace of the Resurrection. But then again, as we shall see later, also by appearing after the Resurrection, He is preparing them for their entry into the high degree of deification and vision of God which will take place at Pentecost.

But Christ's manifestation to His Disciples after the Resurrection did not happen only for them, for we know that all who reach a comparable degree of cure and purification are granted to participate in Christ's Resurrection and to see the Risen Christ. It is in this perspective that we should also look at the case of the Apostle Paul, who has the assurance that the risen Christ also appeared to him. "Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time" (1 Cor. 15, 8). And it is well known that the Apostle Paul was a Jewish zealot at the time of the Resurrection, because he was converted to Christ after the Pentecost and was presented with the apparition of the risen Christ after His Ascension and Pentecost. (pp. 257-259). The feasts of the Lord by Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos

[Adrian Martin]

I started reading My Life in Christ by St. John of Kronstadt, and came across a passage (pp. 5-6) I thought was germane to this discussion. Forgive me for a lengthy excerpt, but I think it's a very valuable insight:


We are all able to think, because an unlimited Wisdom (Thought) exists, just as we are able to breathe because unlimited air-spaces exist. This is the reason why bright ideas upon any subject are called inspirations. Our thoughts are constantly flowing conditionally with the existence of the unlimited Spirit of Wisdom (Thought). This is why the Apostle says: "Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God. [2 Corinthians 3:5]" This is also why the Saviour Himself says:--"Take no thought how or what ye shall speak, for it shall be given you in that hour what ye shall speak. [St. Matthew 10:19]" Thus you see that the thought and even the word itself (the inspiration) come to us from without. This, of course, in a state of grace and in cases of need. But even in our ordinary state all our bright thoughts come from our Guardian Angel and from God's Spirit: whilst, on the contrary, impure, dark thoughts proceed from our corrupt nature and from the Devil, ever lying in wait for us. How, then, should the Christian behave? "God himself worketh in us. [Philippians 2:13]" In general, throughout the world we see the Kingdom of thought in the structure of the whole visible world, as also in particular in the earth, in the rotation and the life of the terrestrial globe; in the distribution of the elements--light, air, water, earth, fire(concealed), whilst other elements are diffused in all animals--in birds, fishes, reptiles, beasts, and men--in their wise and ingenious construction, in their faculties, nature and habits; in plants, in their construction, nourishment, etc.; in a word, we see everywhere the kingdom of thought, even down to the lifeless stone and sand.