Original Sin--Born with the sin nature...

[Ren]

@Milktoast Bandit I'm glad you could find your religious home in a language. I also really like how you describe the Orthodox conception of sin as "missing the mark", it seems to contain a real positivity rather than a negativity. Would the Orthodox conception go so far as to consider even the worst crimes cases of (simply very greviously) missing the mark?

Bertrand Russell had some wonderful reflections on Spinoza's panentheism that brought up this question, hence why I'm asking. Although an atheist, Russell was very moved by that kind of God.

 

[Ren]

I don't think sin is what you do. I think sin is a potential. I think that is why they originally believed you are born with it, because you are born with potential. I think the concept just got confused over the years and became what you do rather than what you're capable of. It is imperfection which is why you can't escape it even if you avoid doing actions.

But as long as we haven't seen it embodied in actions, how can we establish that sin exists in potential, rather than not at all? In fact... how could even know anything about it?

I hope that it is possible to lead a life of "little sin" rather than a life of "great sin". But if sin were merely a potential, I'm afraid the consequence would be that the most honest man would be just as much a sinner as a murderer. And there would also be no way to learn to "miss the mark" less and thus to sin less, throughout a life. I find these consequences difficult to accept.

 

[Milktoast Bandit]

@Milktoast Bandit I'm glad you could find your religious home in a language. I also really like how you describe the Orthodox conception of sin as "missing the mark", it seems to contain a real positivity rather than a negativity. Would the Orthodox conception go so far as to consider even the worst crimes cases of (simply very greviously) missing the mark?

Bertrand Russell had some wonderful reflections on Spinoza's panentheism that brought up this question, hence why I'm asking. Although an atheist, Russell was very moved by that kind of God.

Yes. They don't make distinctions between sins as Roman Catholics do with mortal vs. venial sins. A sin is a sin. The word sin comes from archery. If you miss the bulls eyes it's a sin it doesn't matter if you just miss it or if you miss the entire target it's still a sin.

That's not to say a liar is due the same repercussions as a one who murders babies for sport. In this material world, the murderer shall receive a far greater punishment than one who told a lie.

The question is: Do they have the same opportunity for salvation or to be in Union with God? The answer is yes. It is up to the individual to seek and know God. A murderer can do that on death row and a liar can do that in the shower. God does not turn from man, it is man that refuses to turn towards God.

 

[Ren]

Yes. They don't make distinctions between sins as Roman Catholics do with mortal vs. venial sins. A sin is a sin. The word sin comes from archery. If you miss the bulls eyes it's a sin it doesn't matter if you just miss it or if you miss the entire target it's still a sin.

That's not to say a liar is due the same repercussions as a one who murders babies for sport. In this material world, the murderer shall receive a far greater punishment than one who told a lie.

The question is: Do they have the same opportunity for salvation or to be in Union with God? The answer is yes. It is up to the individual to seek and know God. A murderer can do that on death row and a liar can do that in the shower. God does not turn from man, it is man that refuses to turn towards God.

This is really interesting - this difference in the conception of sin between the Orthodox and Catholic faiths. Would you say that it's one of the cardinal differences between the two, or just one among many? I mean I know that there are many, but I'm interested to know what would be the more superficial differences and then the deeper ones. I'll have to read more about Orthodox Christianity when I get the time, I guess I do see philosophical puzzles coming with this but I'll have to sort them out in my head first and determine whether they really are puzzles.

Oh and I'm reassured to hear that baby murderers should not be considered equal to liars - the opposite should have worried me! ah ah!

 

[Milktoast Bandit]

This is really interesting - this difference in the conception of sin between the Orthodox and Catholic faiths. Would you say that it's one of the cardinal differences between the two, or just one among many? I mean I know that there are many, but I'm interested to know what would be the more superficial differences and then the deeper ones. I'll have to read more about Orthodox Christianity when I get the time, I guess I do see philosophical puzzles coming with this but I'll have to sort them out in my head first and determine whether they really are puzzles.

Oh and I'm reassured to hear that baby murderers should not be considered equal to liars - the opposite should have worried me! ah ah!

If you're interested, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church by Vladimir Lossky is a good way to jump right into the deep end.

It is said that there are a million little differences. Some do have bigger theological implications than others, such as the filioque. Here's a brief article about a few differences: it seems to be mostly neutral with a Catholic slant, but you get the idea.

Roman Catholic vs. Greek Orthodox Churches
During the fourth century, Christianity revolved around five main areas: Constantinople (today’s Turkey), Alexandria (Egypt), Jerusalem (Israel), Antioch (Greece), and Rome (Italy). But when Islam started to flourish, the primary centers of focus became Constantinople and Rome. With this, later on, the powers in these centers started to diminish, leading to the East-West Schism or the Great Schism in 1054 AD. And so came the birth of the Greek Orthodox (Eastern Orthodox), similar to Roman Catholicism in ways largely related to the teachings of the Apostles and Jesus Christ.

As these two religions were nourished, however, certain differences emerged; they are carried by their believers’ faith to this day. The first difference is relates to the Pope. For the Roman Catholics, the Pope is infallible; he can contradict lower ranking church leaders. On the other hand, Greek Orthodox believers consider a ‘highest bishop’, also known as the ‘first among equals’. This bishop is not infallible and does not have supreme authority over the churches.

Another difference between these two is related to the language used during church services. In Roman Catholic churches, services are held in Latin, while in Greek Orthodox churches, native languages are used.

Another difference between the two religions is the concept of original sin. Even though both believe in the so-called ‘original sin’ that can be purified through baptism, they have varying ideas regarding its effects on humanity. They also differ when it comes to how it can be applied to Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ. For Catholics, Mary was born with no original sin. According to the Greek Orthodox, Mary – just like all other humans – was born and will then die. She was selected to be Christ’s mother due to her righteous life.

Aside from these major differences, there are some minor ones as well. One of these is related to icons and statues. Churches of the Eastern Orthodox pay homage to icons, while Roman Catholic ones have statues.

Additionally, in the Roman Catholic Church, the doctrines, which are changed over time by popes, bishops, and other known instruments of the Holy Spirit, are considered to be more intellectual, bearing the enlightenment provided by the Spirit itself. This is in line with what they call ‘Doctrinal Development’. Meanwhile, for the other religion, the New Testament must not be changed. For Eastern Orthodox believers, the early Church and the Bible must not be altered in any way; for them, this is a way to avoid heresies and false doctrines, and abide by Jesus’s warning that tells them to be cautious of human traditions connected to Christ’s doctrines.

Furthermore, Eastern Orthodox priests are allowed to marry before they are ordinated, while in the Roman Catholic Church, priests cannot marry.

Additionally, Eastern Orthodox believers do not accept the concept of purgatory as well as the Stations of the Cross, as opposed to the Roman Catholics.

In relation to the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, while Roman Catholics make use of an unleavened wafer, members of the Greek Orthodox Church use unleavened bread. They also have differences in the calculations of the days pertaining to Easter and Christmas.

The Greek Orthodox is considered to be very mystical and dependent on spiritual practices, while Roman Catholic beliefs tend to be too legalistic and dependent upon intellectual speculation.

Summary:
1. Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox believers both believe in the same God.
2. Roman Catholics deem the Pope as infallible, while Greek Orthodox believers don’t.
3. Roman Catholics believe that Mary is free from original sin, while Greek Orthodox believers don’t.
4. Roman Catholic priests cannot marry, while priests in the Greek Orthodox can marry before they are ordinated.
5. Latin is the main language used during Roman Catholic services, while Greek Orthodox churches use native languages.
6. Roman Catholics venerate statues as much as Greek Orthodox believers venerate icons.
7. Doctrines can be changed in Roman Catholicism, as opposed to Greek Orthodox.
8. Unlike Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox believers do not accept the concepts of purgatory and Stations of the Cross.

 

[Disguised]

Such interesting reads! Have been interested in religions for quite a while, thinking if there was common ground to be found in all of them. More or less I feel like, they represent the same lessons of life that were to serve cultural needs and habits. Sin is a perfect example I feel like. It fits on what I've come to realize of my own actions as I strongly believe in free will and the freedom of choice at all times.

Islam
Allah's apostle said, "Every son of Adam sins, the best of the sinners are those who repent."

Hinduism
In Hinduism, the term sin (pāpa in Sanskrit) is often used to describe actions that create negative karma by violating moral and ethical codes, which automatically brings negative consequences. This is somehow similar to Abrahamic sin.

Christianity
Sin is forgiven, when the sinner acknowledges, confesses, and repents for their sin

Mesopotamian tradition
In Mesopotamian mythology, Adamu (or Addamu/Admu, or Adapa) goes on trial for the "sin of casting down a divinity".

Buddhism
In Buddhist thinking the whole universe, men as well as gods, are subject to a reign of law. Every action, good or bad, has an inevitable and automatic effect in a long chain of causes, an effect which is independent of the will of any deity.

As for the apple in the garden - again...it’s a seriously flawed bit of reasoning.
There were actually two trees but only one was forbidden...there was the Tree of Life (cool, eat it), and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (forbidden).
Most like to leave that detail out.
There is also an entirely different version of events in the Gnostic gospels that I would also encourage you to read if this is a problem for you.
(Gnostic version - God forbids them from eating the apple - “Lest they become Gods like us.”
Who is “Us” exactly, your guess is as good as mine.)
Anyhow.
God created it all right?
So God also created the garden.
He made the two special trees, forbade them from eating from one.
But God is also all knowing yes?
Has power and dominion over all things yes?
Is supposed to be kind and just and compassionate yes?
The vengeful God of the Old Testament was supposed to be superseded by a new law of love - and love one another, no more and eye for an eye.
So by those same ideas, God created “Hell” as well and controls it all too yes?
Here is the problem with torture being eternal - there will come a moment in the vast span of time when no matter what your sin(s) are, eventually the punishment will outweigh the crime and at that moment “Hell” and God also become unjust.
If God is all knowing then he also knew that they would eat the apples - in fact one would have to assume that it was indeed His plan all along.
Otherwise God is not all knowing, he was tricked along with Adam and Eve by Satan - who was also created by God and is ultimately under His control as well.
You see, the Bible is quite illogical in many areas....the story of Adam and Eve I wouldn’t take as anything more than a parable...but it’s an interesting one nonetheless.
So why put the tree there at all?

I thought about this yesterday evening for quite the long time. Never heard of this story about two trees.
I value questioning over all for the truth isn't something absolute. Was it gods will in this story to question even him? To grant his gift of free will for humankind to evolve even when this "truth" would be given. To choose the apple for the interest of it. For example quantum physics. One wouldn't question the happenings in it if "absolute" truth was given. For in this story god told not to, yet human questions it. Becomes sentient and decides to free himself of command. Eating the apple is more pleasant anyways than living. Much like hedonism is pleasant, but yet not very teaching. Many seem to choose a pleasant life and thrive towards it and many the life of thriving in life.

 

[Skarekrow]

Such interesting reads! Have been interested in religions for quite a while, thinking if there was common ground to be found in all of them. More or less I feel like, they represent the same lessons of life that were to serve cultural needs and habits. Sin is a perfect example I feel like. It fits on what I've come to realize of my own actions as I strongly believe in free will and the freedom of choice at all times.

Islam
Allah's apostle said, "Every son of Adam sins, the best of the sinners are those who repent."

Hinduism
In Hinduism, the term sin (pāpa in Sanskrit) is often used to describe actions that create negative karma by violating moral and ethical codes, which automatically brings negative consequences. This is somehow similar to Abrahamic sin.

Christianity
Sin is forgiven, when the sinner acknowledges, confesses, and repents for their sin

Mesopotamian tradition
In Mesopotamian mythology, Adamu (or Addamu/Admu, or Adapa) goes on trial for the "sin of casting down a divinity".

Buddhism
In Buddhist thinking the whole universe, men as well as gods, are subject to a reign of law. Every action, good or bad, has an inevitable and automatic effect in a long chain of causes, an effect which is independent of the will of any deity.


I thought about this yesterday evening for quite the long time. Never heard of this story about two trees.
I value questioning over all for the truth isn't something absolute. Was it gods will in this story to question even him? To grant his gift of free will for humankind to evolve even when this "truth" would be given. To choose the apple for the interest of it. For example quantum physics. One wouldn't question the happenings in it if "absolute" truth was given. For in this story god told not to, yet human questions it. Becomes sentient and decides to free himself of command. Eating the apple is more pleasant anyways than living. Much like hedonism is pleasant, but yet not very teaching. Many seem to choose a pleasant life and thrive towards it and many the life of thriving in life.

I think we are encouraged to question and doubt by God.
This is against what most organized religions teach you to do....they want you to blindly accept the stories and sermons at face value and be a good little Christian and not question what is being discussed.
Jesus prayed to God in the garden the night before he was crucified because he was scared and he had doubt.
He questioned if this was the only way for him to go.
I don’t feel that God or Source or whatever name for a creator/creation would give us minds capable of great insight and deep thoughts on our reality and the nature of life and the meaning of it all - if it wasn’t intended to be used for such.
I don’t think that God would be upset if you were to think critically about the words in the book as opposed to accepting the whole thing at face value.
Not to say that there is not truth and good in the Bible...but there are things contained within that are just not okay anymore.
Slavery - the Bible never condemns it, just tells you how to treat your slaves.
Sexism - throughout the book.
BTW - Sodom and nearby cities weren’t a bunch of homosexuals and sexual deviants...it was a city of thieves. It was this thievery that led God to destroy it...which was rather not nice.
You mention QM, when particles blink out in one spot only to simultaneously appear in another spot entirely seemingly outside of the constraints of the speed of light (in the case of entangled particles), where do they go exactly?
How do two entangled particles in spite of distance change spin at the same time?
We don’t know...we have theories.
Same with God and the story of the fruit.
Without Adam and Eve eating the apple - we wouldn’t exist as we do now right?
Also, God punishing all of humanity for sins we had ZERO control over - is extremely unjust and is kind of a dick move.

 

[Ren]

I don’t feel that God or Source or whatever name for a creator/creation would give us minds capable of great insight and deep thoughts on our reality and the nature of life and the meaning of it all - if it wasn’t intended to be used for such.

Very true. I completely agree with you here.

The interest thing is that this point has been used by scholastic philosophers to demonstrate that we are indeed "one" with God, via the concept of the agent intellect (originally developed by Aristotle, I believe). Broadly, it says that our souls are uniquely endowed with an agent intellect that transcends us and ultimately can be traced back to God's mind. This agent intellect gives us access to fundamental truths that are located in God's mind, like other fundamental truths. So in a sense, God gives us minds capable of great insight and deep thoughts because.... ultimately these shall lead back to Him!

God is a clever fellow.

 

[Misty]

I find the concept of original sin to be silly.
If that is so, then you also have no free will.
Supposedly we do says the Bible...the veil was placed there so we forget where we came from and therefore it doesn’t influence us otherwise it would interfere with our supposed free will.
If original sin is true then our lives are fated and we have no control over them at all.
I find it hard to look at a newborn baby and say - this one is predetermined to go to Hell.
What kind of justness is that?

100% .. Agreed

 

[Littlelissa]

in a sense, God gives us minds capable of great insight and deep thoughts because.... ultimately these shall lead back to Him!

Or you could say that godliness can be found in human nature (e.g. it is not 'coming from' god). I think god was just a human being who realised his potential. The expression of 'godliness' in himself, that is also potentially inherent in others.


Back to the OP 'Original sin - born with the sin nature'?
Re the capacity to 'sin' (I hate the word 'sin'-lets say the capacity to do wrong)...
I think 'ungodliness' is also naturally found in human nature....We're either acting from our enlightened nature, or acting from our unenlightened nature. I think we can be everything good and bad but I don't think evil is 'inherent' so to speak. Not usually anyway.

 

[Misty]

He's pretty clear about the topic in the bible imo.. If we were not born with the free will to opt to sin or not to sin then the entire notion of Heaven and Hell, of salvation itself, would be rendered utterly moot.. This would make the entirety of humanity nothing more than predetermined drones awaiting either eternal damnation or eternal salvation. Sounds kind of boring for God and us, right? Where's the mystery in that?

Without a test, there's no testimony..

Tired brain.. flip that.. There's no testimony without a test.. o.o

 

[Ren]

Or you could say that godliness can be found in human nature (e.g. it is not 'coming from' god). I think god was just a human being who realised his potential. The expression of 'godliness' in himself, that is also potentially inherent in others.

Yes, I think you very much could but then, you would be working with a different definition of the word godly. Instead of “sharing in the perfection of God”, the word would mean something like “having realised one’s human potential, just like that first human who achieved it, God.” In a sense, the word God would change in ontological status. It would no longer refer to an omniscient and omnipotent entity (the perfect being who created the world) but to human being – like you said – endowed with that peculiar quality of having attained not “absolute” perfection, but the perfection of his/her/their own life. So saying “godly” would literally have the same sense as saying “like Roobarb&custard”, supposing you are God, or godlike.

But then, what remains of God the omnipotent/omniscient entity if we take this approach?

Spoiler: Believers, stay away from this!

 

[Littlelissa]

Yes, I think one very much could but then, you would be working with a different definition of the word godly. Instead of “sharing in the perfection of God”, the word would mean something like “having realised one’s human potential, just like that first human who achieved it, God.” In a sense, the word God would change in ontological status. It would no longer refer to an omniscient and omnipotent entity (the perfect being who created the world) but to human being – like you said – with that peculiar quality of having attained not “absolute” perfection, but the perfection of his/her/their own life. So saying “godly” would literally have the same sense as saying “like Roobarbandcustard”, supposing you are God, or godlike.

But then, what remains of God the omnipotent/omniscient entity if we take this approach?

Spoiler: Believers, stay away from this!

Exactly! God is dead (or alive everywhere).

 

[infinite dreams]

"Original sin" as a concept was developed to more effectively infuse the doctrines of Christianity with the necessary ration of guilt to keep adherents coming back for more.

Yes, that's my opinion. I also happen to believe it's a fact.

For the record I do not subscribe to any religion. That said, kudos to @Skarekrow for several outstanding posts in this thread that take a religious slant while maintaining a common sense approach.

 

[Misty]

Yes, I think you very much could but then, you would be working with a different definition of the word godly. Instead of “sharing in the perfection of God”, the word would mean something like “having realised one’s human potential, just like that first human who achieved it, God.” In a sense, the word God would change in ontological status. It would no longer refer to an omniscient and omnipotent entity (the perfect being who created the world) but to human being – like you said – endowed with that peculiar quality of having attained not “absolute” perfection, but the perfection of his/her/their own life. So saying “godly” would literally have the same sense as saying “like Roobarb&custard”, supposing you are God, or godlike.

But then, what remains of God the omnipotent/omniscient entity if we take this approach?

Spoiler: Believers, stay away from this!

O.O

Holds tongue so it doesn't start a friendly debate about some things you said.. and about that meme..

Ren.. Ren.. Renny

 

[Ren]

O.O

Holds tongue so it doesn't start a friendly debate about some things you said.. and about that meme..

Ren.. Ren.. Renny
View attachment 37939

I love how you call this a "friendly debate" and then picture me burning in hell

 

[Misty]

I love how you call this a "friendly debate" and then picture me burning in hell

No no lovely, no worries (( cute interpretation though )) That right there is my personal mascot.. the entire reason my blog is named "Feel the Flaming Elmo Feels".. Courtesy of Wyote, then Ruji upon entering the forum.. because they were teasing me about being so intense... lol. I had never seen it and fell in love with it, and well.. the rest is history..

We can just call this duel a draw though.. God saw that meme.. and that's all the ammo Elmo and I need!!

Muahaha!!

 

[Skarekrow]

Very true. I completely agree with you here.

The interest thing is that this point has been used by scholastic philosophers to demonstrate that we are indeed "one" with God, via the concept of the agent intellect (originally developed by Aristotle, I believe). Broadly, it says that our souls are uniquely endowed with an agent intellect that transcends us and ultimately can be traced back to God's mind. This agent intellect gives us access to fundamental truths that are located in God's mind, like other fundamental truths. So in a sense, God gives us minds capable of great insight and deep thoughts because.... ultimately these shall lead back to Him!

God is a clever fellow.

Without a questioning nature we would still be living in caves.
It is doubt that has driven humanity forward, that and our incredible ability to imagine things that don’t exist except for in our minds.
The flip side is we die and blink out and that is that...our brains would be the origination of our “self” our consciousness, which is an amazing thing the human brain...it’s is essentially a biologic quantum computer capable of physically evolving...still I don’t see the brain as the source of my consciousness, but rather the stance of some that it is the receiver of consciousness instead...that after we die, this spark, our soul, spirit, whatever you want to call it, energetic self...will carry on to some other who knows what.
The biologic computer theory is okay...but it also insists that you have no free will either...that you only have the impression that you are making a choice when in fact your programing in your brain has already predetermined what you will choose.
I find that concept kind of stupid.
What possible reason would our brain have to trick us into thinking we have a choice when we do not?
It would save much internal debate, internal struggle, internal cognitive dissonance.
That is why is dismiss that part of the theory - there is no sense for it.
But yes...I do believe that there is some sort of collective consciousness or at least some kind of broad mental connection between people, but not just people but also our environment, on a reductive level we run out of separation between me and the laptop I am typing on, yet somehow it and myself are held together in these forms which allow us to experience this reality - though actually a small sliver of the whole of reality that is going on around us without our conscious knowledge.
But I adhere to the notion that we are the universe experiencing and exploring itself...or call it God.
Not saying that we are God or Gods, but that perhaps there is a greater consciousness holding this reality together for us to experience and understand to the fullest capacity we can - we must question things...question this reality because it is only our subjective reduced perception and not the whole truth.
Much love!

"Original sin" as a concept was developed to more effectively infuse the doctrines of Christianity with the necessary ration of guilt to keep adherents coming back for more.

Yes, that's my opinion. I also happen to believe it's a fact.

For the record I do not subscribe to any religion. That said, kudos to @Skarekrow for several outstanding posts in this thread that take a religious slant while maintaining a common sense approach.

Thanks...I’m not trying to piss on anyone’s beliefs...I find there to be wisdom in many of the religions, but I also don’t take everything literally as some religions do. I am not afraid to point out the huge hypocrisies contained within either though, I just try not to be a dick about it.
Totally agree with what you wrote above...not just Christianity that uses this...or just fear-mongering in general - "Be in this religion or you will suffer in Hell!" sounds more like a threat than something I want to thank anyone for. lol
I find that line of reasoning a bit off.

 

[Milktoast Bandit]

Not saying that we are God or Gods

I don't know if other denominations of Christianity have this approach but to Eastern Orthodox, it is said that God became man so that man may become god. (<little 'g') There is a similar quote by a Saint who's name I forget at the moment: "We become through adoption what Christ is by nature." That is, by using our free will to surrender our ego or "sinful nature" we cooperate with the divine energies of God
(Keep in mind, God is not some guy sitting in the clouds tossing judgement. They make a distinction between the essence of God (we cannot know) and the energies of God that indwells in all things(we can know) ) It is by this surrender, which includes the fear of death, that we can experience the energies of God and be put on the spiritual path to living the purpose of life. To the Orthodox the purpose of life is theosis.

I don't have time to go into more detail so I'm about to copy and paste some stuff, but before I do I have a little quote from Saint Paisios of Mt. Athos: God is a frequency that we must tune into to. (I just included that because it's fitting. Copy/paste time! Be love<3

The teaching of deification or theosis in Eastern Orthodoxy refers to the attainment of likeness of God, union with God or reconciliation with God. Deification has three stages in its process of transformation: katharsis, theoria, theosis. Theosis as such is the goal, it is the purpose of life, and it is considered achievable only through a synergy (or cooperation) between humans' activities and God's uncreated energies (or operations).[18][19] Theosis is an important concept in Eastern Orthodox theology deriving from the fact that Eastern Orthodox theology is of an explicitly mystical character. Theology in the Eastern Orthodox Church is what is derived from saints or mystics of the tradition, and Eastern Orthodoxy considers that "no one who does not follow the path of union with God can be a theologian."[20] In Eastern Orthodoxy, theology is not treated as an academic pursuit, but it is based on revelation (see gnosiology), meaning that Eastern Orthodox theology and its theologians are validated by ascetic pursuits, rather than academic degrees (i.e. scholasticism).

According to the Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology, as quoted by Millet and Reynolds:

Deification (Greek theosis) is for Orthodoxy the goal of every Christian. Man, according to the Bible, is 'made in the image and likeness of God.' ... It is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become god by grace. This doctrine is based on many passages of both OT and NT (e.g. Ps. 82 (81).6; II Peter 1.4), and it is essentially the teaching both of St Paul, though he tends to use the language of filial adoption (cf. Rom. 8.9—17; Gal. 4.5—7), and the Fourth Gospel (cf. 17.21—23).

The language of II Peter is taken up by St Irenaeus, in his famous phrase, 'if the Word has been made man, it is so that men may be made gods' (Adv. Haer V, Pref.), and becomes the standard in Greek theology. In the fourth century, St. Athanasius repeats Irenaeus almost word for word, and in the fifth century St Cyril of Alexandria says that we shall become sons 'by participation' (Greek methexis). Deification is the central idea in the spirituality of St. Maximus the Confessor, for whom the doctrine is the corollary of the Incarnation: 'Deification, briefly, is the encompassing and fulfillment of all times and ages,' ... and St. Symeon the New Theologian at the end of the tenth century writes, 'He who is God by nature converses with those whom he has made gods by grace, as a friend converses with his friends, face to face.' ...[21]

Vision of God
According to Hierotheos Vlachos, divinization, also called theosis, "is the participation in the Uncreated grace of God" and "is identified and connected with the theoria (vision) of the Uncreated Light". "Theoria is the vision of the glory of God. Theoria is identified with the vision of the uncreated Light, the uncreated energy of God, with the union of man with God, with man's theosis. This vision, by which faith is attained, is what saves: "Faith comes by hearing the Word and by experiencing theoria (the vision of God). We accept faith at first by hearing in order to be healed, and then we attain to faith by theoria, which saves man." It is also one of the means by which Christians came to know the Trinity: "The disciples of Christ acquired the knowledge of the Triune God in theoria (vision of God) and by revelation."[22]

As a patristic and historical teaching
For many Church Fathers, theosis goes beyond simply restoring people to their state before the Fall of Adam and Eve, teaching that because Christ united the human and divine natures in Jesus' person, it is now possible for someone to experience closer fellowship with God than Adam and Eve initially experienced in the Garden of Eden, and that people can become more like God than Adam and Eve were at that time. Some Eastern Orthodox theologians go so far as to say that Jesus would have become incarnate for this reason alone, even if Adam and Eve had never sinned.

 

[Misty]

I don't know if other denominations of Christianity have this approach but to Eastern Orthodox, it is said that God became man so that man may become god. (<little 'g') There is a similar quote by a Saint who's name I forget at the moment: "We become through adoption what Christ is by nature." That's is, by using our free will to surrender our ego or "sinful nature" we cooperate with the divine energies of God
(Keep in mind, God is not some guy sitting in the clouds tossing judgement. They make a distinction between the essence of God (we cannot know) and the energies of God that indwells in all things(we can know) ) It is by this surrender, which includes the fear of death, that we can experience the energies of God and be put on the spiritual path to living the purpose of life. To the Orthodox the purpose of life is theosis.

I'm don't have time to go into more detail so I'm about to copy and paste some stuff, but before I do I have a little quote from Saint Paisios of Mt. Athos: God is a frequency that we must tune into to. (I just included that because it's fitting. Copy/paste time! Be love<3

The teaching of deification or theosis in Eastern Orthodoxy refers to the attainment of likeness of God, union with God or reconciliation with God. Deification has three stages in its process of transformation: katharsis, theoria, theosis. Theosis as such is the goal, it is the purpose of life, and it is considered achievable only through a synergy (or cooperation) between humans' activities and God's uncreated energies (or operations).[18][19] Theosis is an important concept in Eastern Orthodox theology deriving from the fact that Eastern Orthodox theology is of an explicitly mystical character. Theology in the Eastern Orthodox Church is what is derived from saints or mystics of the tradition, and Eastern Orthodoxy considers that "no one who does not follow the path of union with God can be a theologian."[20] In Eastern Orthodoxy, theology is not treated as an academic pursuit, but it is based on revelation (see gnosiology), meaning that Eastern Orthodox theology and its theologians are validated by ascetic pursuits, rather than academic degrees (i.e. scholasticism).

According to the Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology, as quoted by Millet and Reynolds:

Deification (Greek theosis) is for Orthodoxy the goal of every Christian. Man, according to the Bible, is 'made in the image and likeness of God.' ... It is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become god by grace. This doctrine is based on many passages of both OT and NT (e.g. Ps. 82 (81).6; II Peter 1.4), and it is essentially the teaching both of St Paul, though he tends to use the language of filial adoption (cf. Rom. 8.9—17; Gal. 4.5—7), and the Fourth Gospel (cf. 17.21—23).

The language of II Peter is taken up by St Irenaeus, in his famous phrase, 'if the Word has been made man, it is so that men may be made gods' (Adv. Haer V, Pref.), and becomes the standard in Greek theology. In the fourth century, St. Athanasius repeats Irenaeus almost word for word, and in the fifth century St Cyril of Alexandria says that we shall become sons 'by participation' (Greek methexis). Deification is the central idea in the spirituality of St. Maximus the Confessor, for whom the doctrine is the corollary of the Incarnation: 'Deification, briefly, is the encompassing and fulfillment of all times and ages,' ... and St. Symeon the New Theologian at the end of the tenth century writes, 'He who is God by nature converses with those whom he has made gods by grace, as a friend converses with his friends, face to face.' ...[21]

Vision of God
According to Hierotheos Vlachos, divinization, also called theosis, "is the participation in the Uncreated grace of God" and "is identified and connected with the theoria (vision) of the Uncreated Light". "Theoria is the vision of the glory of God. Theoria is identified with the vision of the uncreated Light, the uncreated energy of God, with the union of man with God, with man's theosis. This vision, by which faith is attained, is what saves: "Faith comes by hearing the Word and by experiencing theoria (the vision of God). We accept faith at first by hearing in order to be healed, and then we attain to faith by theoria, which saves man." It is also one of the means by which Christians came to know the Trinity: "The disciples of Christ acquired the knowledge of the Triune God in theoria (vision of God) and by revelation."[22]

As a patristic and historical teaching
For many Church Fathers, theosis goes beyond simply restoring people to their state before the Fall of Adam and Eve, teaching that because Christ united the human and divine natures in Jesus' person, it is now possible for someone to experience closer fellowship with God than Adam and Eve initially experienced in the Garden of Eden, and that people can become more like God than Adam and Eve were at that time. Some Eastern Orthodox theologians go so far as to say that Jesus would have become incarnate for this reason alone, even if Adam and Eve had never sinned.

Yesssssss.. That.. is the description I would use. I am plain vanilla Christian and we believe the same.. God was not a man.. He sent his son Jesus to take the form of a human and to die for us, atonement.. pure blood, so pure it paid for the sins of all of humanity, for all of time.. It covered the bill for all of our future mistakes.. To provide humans with a way to atone, which as less than perfect beings we cannot alone do..

He also came and lived amongst us so that we may not say.. "hey, you don't know what it's like to be one of the very creatures, you created - to be tempted, to feel physical torment as we do.. the depths of the human condition..

Such emotion..

Such, pain... ..

And to walk a mile in our shoes, well 30 plus years he spent as one of us.. to show that, while we cannot be perfect, we all fall short.. even preachers.. that we can try. We can strive to live right, to help our fellow man with all of our hearts, and all of our souls... Just as he did... in human form.

Being Christian and being "religious" are two utterly different things.. God wants our hearts, and some of our time.. A private relationship where we turn to him in times of good and bad, for advice, for hope, for comfort.. Just like we would with our own fathers.. I guess that's why we call him, "God, the father" and why he calls us, his children..