"God became man so that man could become God" --Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandra 4th century

[Orbit]

"God became man so that man could become God" --Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandra, 4th century

This is an interesting theological idea that can be read to have been intimated by Maximus Confessor, Pseudo-Dionysus, Gregory of Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa. This idea is more common in the Eastern Orthodox tradition but less so in the rest of Christendom.

This idea puts quite a different focus on the practice of Christianity. The way they used it, there was a continual upward striving in the monastic context of the time. They called this "theosis" which was an ideal to be aspired to. Here are some other Biblical quotes on this idea: http://www.antiochian.org/content/theosis-partaking-divine-nature

After reading the explanation at the link, what do you think of "theosis"? Is it compatible with your religious practice?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I reject the premiss.

 

[paarsurrey]

"God became man so that man could become God" --Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandra, 4th century
This is an interesting theological idea that can be read to have been intimated by Maximus Confessor, Pseudo-Dionysus, Gregory of Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa. This idea is more common in the Eastern Orthodox tradition but less so in the rest of Christendom.
This idea puts quite a different focus on the practice of Christianity. The way they used it, there was a continual upward striving in the monastic context of the time. They called this "theosis" which was an ideal to be aspired to. Here are some other Biblical quotes on this idea: http://www.antiochian.org/content/theosis-partaking-divine-nature
After reading the explanation at the link, what do you think of "theosis"? Is it compatible with your religious practice?

It simply never happened. Please
Regards

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Not just Orthodoxy. It is still standard belief for most churches, from the Catholics to the Methodists. It is, of course, scriptural: based on Paul's statement than humans are destined to be "partakers of the divine nature".

Theosis is obviously compatible with most branches of Paganism. I worship the Emperor Julian and the teacher Thomas Taylor as heroes. Many African diaspora religions worship Shango, who was king of Oyo. Japan has "human kami" and in China, deified humans outnumber "original" gods.

 

[rusra02]

It is not based on Holy Scripture. Almighty God did not become a man, nor can man become God.

 

[Quintessence]

Doesn't work in my religion because it presupposes a divide between gods and humans that I do not follow. My religion embraces the idea that all are gods, so humans are already gods. There is no need to become that which we already are.

 

[lovemuffin]

It is, of course, scriptural: based on Paul's statement than humans are destined to be "partakers of the divine nature".

A small correction: You are referring to 2 Peter 1:4, so presumably not written by Paul.

 

[lovemuffin]

Doesn't work in my religion because it presupposes a divide between gods and humans that I do not follow. My religion embraces the idea that all are gods, so humans are already gods. There is no need to become that which we already are.

I understand the conclusion based on the differing theological premises, but I'm curious: does your religious practice include some idea that to be human is to be in the process of change or spiritual progress? To make a comparison, an advaitin Hindu would agree that the separation isn't ultimately real, and that people already are that (as in Chandogya Upanishad) but their religious practice involves the idea that a person has to realize it. The practice of approaching realization is comparable in some ways to the Christian practice intended to reach theosis, even though the underlying theology is different. It seems to me that many religions involve the idea that in some way people have to realize their full potential, even if they conceptualize what that means differently. Abstracting away from real differences between religions doesn't mean those differences don't exist or aren't meaningful, but the underlying similarities are also interesting to me.

 

[Brickjectivity]

After reading the explanation at the link, what do you think of "theosis"? Is it compatible with your religious practice?

I am a visitor to a quaker assembly, and I suspect this is not fully compatible with Quaker practice. I am not sure. (By the way is this the same Mark Shuttleworth who is an astronaut and founder of Canonical?) Quakers recognize something they call the 'Inner light'. I am unsure in several ways about Shuttleworth's statement "Theosis is the understanding that human beings can have real union with God, and so become like God to such a degree that we participate in the divine nature." I think he is denying we have real union with God by claiming that we need to have it, which seems not to be in accordance with the Quaker movement. I could be wrong about that as I'm not yet familiar with the roots and bones of the movement. Also it technically sounds like he doesn't think that Jesus death upon the cross is truly for all.

Perhaps there is disagreement over whether theosis is something which needs to be attained versus something humans already have. Take this statement in the article "We become united with God by grace in the Person of Christ, who is God come in the flesh" versus this one "Some Protestants might refer to this process as sanctification." Sanctification is a process which takes time, however Christ completes his work on the cross with a single act. So when does the theosis truly occur? What is being sanctified?

I am not certain, but this statement "With the Incarnation, God has assumed and glorified our flesh and has consecrated and sanctified our humanity" does not easily correlate with certain NT books, such as Hebrews and James in which the flesh is vilified, while the breath only is glorified. "Full participation in Christ" (from the article) seems a denial of everything the flesh has to offer, not a glorification of it. 'The Flesh' drags us down, and only the spirit pulls us up. In Hebrews, Jesus is killed because of his flesh and resurrected with a new better body because of his obedience. His spirit is the only part of him that is in union with God until after he has died.

Suppose rather than what Mark Shuttleworth has said, that nothing you do outside of Christ lasts, nothing of the flesh (out of the will of the flesh). An afterlife pleases the flesh, so suppose that rather than afterlife, eternal life refers to those acts which are sanctified and not of the flesh. Then only "Full participation in Christ" is full eternal life, rather than an afterlife. As you proceed into a life in Christ you become more real, more true, sanctified, more eternal; but the flesh and the things that come from the will of the flesh all rot, degrade and fade. Then by taking on the attributes of the divine, which is permanent an incorruptible, you become more divine, but the flesh is not glorified. It cannot be divine. Instead it is ignored. Then you have theosis and sanctification.

 

[Father Heathen]

Doesn't work in my religion because it presupposes a divide between gods and humans that I do not follow. My religion embraces the idea that all are gods, so humans are already gods. There is no need to become that which we already are.

Well, there is that whole immortality and omnipotence thing.

 

[wizanda]

After reading the explanation at the link, what do you think of "theosis"?

Based on the Biblical texts, it is faulty logic... First the gospel of John 10:34 is made up; then the word used in Psalms 82:6 is Elohim, thus it is saying we're all angels, and children of the Most High.

 

[Quintessence]

I understand the conclusion based on the differing theological premises, but I'm curious: does your religious practice include some idea that to be human is to be in the process of change or spiritual progress?

In the sense that you likely mean? No. As is the case with the contemporary Pagan movement more broadly, I begin with the premise that the world is not broken and is not in need of "saving" or "fixing" or "enlightening" or what have you. It is about celebrating that which is, not demanding that which is not.

Practices in my path involve being mindful of and developing connections to others around us, particularly non-human persons. It is about the "okay, we are all here, and this is how things are, so how do we want to get along with each other? What parts do we want to really celebrate or worship?" It becomes much more about identifying one's gods and living in a way that expresses that respect than some attempt to reach this... "full potential" thing or whatever that is.

Well, there is that whole immortality and omnipotence thing.

What about it? Neither of those are required to deify something, and have not been for many peoples and cultures throughout the world.

 

[Father Heathen]

What about it? Neither of those are required to deify something, and have not been for many peoples and cultures throughout the world.

Well, sure, but I don't think that quite works within the context of the OP (unless I'm misunderstanding it).

 

[lovemuffin]

In the sense that you likely mean? No. As is the case with the contemporary Pagan movement more broadly, I begin with the premise that the world is not broken and is not in need of "saving" or "fixing" or "enlightening" or what have you. It is about celebrating that which is, not demanding that which is not.

Fair enough, and I appreciate your summary of practices. To be clear, it was not one of my premises that the world is broken, nor would such be a premise in advaita, to continue with that example. It clearly is important in Christianity, but it's one of the theological differences I was abstracting away from.

 

[Orbit]

It simply never happened. Please
Regards

This is nonsensical. A full explanation can be had by following the link.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In the sense that you likely mean? No. As is the case with the contemporary Pagan movement more broadly, I begin with the premise that the world is not broken and is not in need of "saving" or "fixing" or "enlightening" or what have you. It is about celebrating that which is, not demanding that which is not.

Practices in my path involve being mindful of and developing connections to others around us, particularly non-human persons. It is about the "okay, we are all here, and this is how things are, so how do we want to get along with each other? What parts do we want to really celebrate or worship?" It becomes much more about identifying one's gods and living in a way that expresses that respect than some attempt to reach this... "full potential" thing or whatever that is.



What about it? Neither of those are required to deify something, and have not been for many peoples and cultures throughout the world.

Can you see the equal value that other religions (minus both bias) have in and of itself?

Christianity has interconnection with everything Thing and everyone but their medium is through Christ.

Buddhism (since you mentioned enlightenment, so guessing) has a sense of connection with everything and everyone but our medium is through the mind.

I will just speak for myself as a pagan (lower p). I have a interconnection with everything and everyone past and present, my medium is everything and everyone you see. No "bridge" but direct connection to the spirits of persons and enviornment.

Your beliefs, practices, or idologies (however defined) has interconnection to as your post says.

While of course a Christian, Buddhist, Pagan (or pagan), whomever may not be able to step from their shoes to see another, Id assume that even though you do not share christian idiologies, there is a way to value their view as you do yours?

Especially given you dont see (as former posts) things as and/or, this/that etc.

What do you value in these faiths I just mentioned?

Instead of what you believe as different, how are your beliefs similar?

 

[Subhankar Zac]

God is living in every speck of matter and energy as Prakriti.
God lives within us as the soul.
So, all living and non living beings are simply fragments of a single divine energy.
That is my personal opinion.