|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Divinization (Christian) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Christianity / Theology / Catholicism / Eastern / Anglicanism / Unitarian Universalism / Latter Day Saints||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
Theosis - Archive 1
|This page is archived by.|
Disputed section heading
Richard wrote: "It seems to me that if we have a section titled 'Western rejection of the Orthodox theosis', then we should have a clear exposition on whether the West does or does not actually reject Orthodox theosis." LoveMonkey wrote: "I have been trying to keep the section Western rejection of the Orthodox theosis FOR MONTHS NOW, under that title in the article and have 2 other editors from time to time remove it. Esoglou and Leadwind."
Leadwind and Esoglou have refrained from correcting that heading at the cost of edit-warring with the single editor who insists on keeping it as it is (see #POV subsection heading above); but now would seem to be a good time for the fresh eyes looking at this article to examine whether the heading corresponds to reality of a section dealing not with theosis but with hesychasm. Esoglou (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Time to draw attention again to the question whether the heading "Western rejection of Orthodox theosis" corresponds to the content of the section? Esoglou (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Esoglou, Ihave two comments - the first is that, if Finch's claim isn't in Catholic - Orthodox theological differences, it should be. It might even be inserted into East - West schism. The second is couched as friendly advice, not as an attack. The bit about "denial of a real distinction between attributes and essence of God is no obstacle to acceptance of an essence-energies distinction" sounds like OR and SYNTH unless you can come up with a reliable source to support it. Of course, me personally, I agree with the assertion and would be happy to see such a source. However, until you do, it's just your opinion. Wikipedia editors should refrain from constructing syllogisms even if they are true and even if they seem to be obvious. --Richard S (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that what Finch says - and we should thank Phatius for drawing attention to it - could very well be inserted into the two articles you mention. Would you do the inserting? I prefer not to edit them except when someone else's editing calls for a balancing edit, as has unfortunately happened again now in the first of the two.
- There was no need to approach your second point so gingerly. I did not dream of inserting that unsourced observation into the article. It was just a remark made in my conversation with Cody, pointing to the weakness of the equally unsourced opposing view. Esoglou (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Richard, since you have not done it yourself, I have carried out your suggestion about inserting the Finch comment in the two articles you mentioned. If on second thoughts you think it best not to insert it, by all means remove it again. Esoglou (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks... I meant to do it but I got distracted over the holidays and then got wrapped up in other articles including the less-than-pleasant discussions that you are aware of. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Discomfort with the language
In talking with a number of Catholics there is a significant discomfort with this concept of becoming God or gods. It appears to fly in the face of monotheism. Is anyone aware of a scholars discussion of this discomfort within Christianity and how it might be appropriately addressed in the article? Thoughts? -StormRider 05:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- I wish I could answer your question directly, but I've got this: Angels are gods. They're eternal beings that live in heaven and have supernatural powers. By many accounts, they are morally perfect (unable to sin). For all intents and purposes, they're gods. My Bible refers to the angel who comes to Samson's parents as a god. So angels are gods. It doesn't take much to be a god. When Paul survived snakebite, people thought he was a god. Meanwhile, Christian saints are eternal beings that live in heaven and have supernatural powers. They're practically gods themselves. You can even gain access to their power through statues of them. In what way are the saint not gods, like angels are? I think it's just an issue of semantics. It's been a long time since Western civilization has used the word "god" for the eternal, supernatural beings that live in heaven, but that's what the ancients called them. Leadwind (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- At Leadwind, the god term is "like God in that his nature is everlasting and unending" meaning that when we are reconciled with God we become "like" him in that we are eternal uncreated-like in being unending. Theosis is like Christ, created but (uncreated) unending, for Christ is uncreated in essence where creatures are created (before Christ was born in the old testament he was called the Angel of the Lord). God is the only thing uncreated in essence. As for what the Catholics believe thing, well yeah Esoglou and others from the Byzantine Rite, Unionist (yeah as if their have dibs on Byzantium) or the Greek Catholic etc, etc, where not raised "Roman Catholic". They where raised in Eastern Orthodox countries for the most part and where immersed in Eastern Orthodox culture and their church keeps these things while claiming alliance with the Pope. Thing is, what the big fat elephant in the room that no one will talk about is that if everyone "unites" the RCC way or if the RCC stops pursing ecumenism and at the snap of their fingers the RCC out of the Vatican can by means of authority make compliance with the West and it's practices and theology THE RULE. Of course everybody makes promises and they would never do bad things like that. Like that or get our Clergy to sign off on a agreement making them capitulate and promising them solders to fight Islam. Solders that never came but then that's nothing compared to saying they would never take Orthodox property again but then force VERY LARGE scale wars in Greece Turkey and the middle East to take our churches from us. Ah the Crimean War. Allot to overcome and ignoring those things will not make them go away. Let alone the Balkins. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Rider there is much to the division much to the difference and those differences are there and not strictly based on words or languages or historical events, its rather a mix of all. My point is- When you say most Catholics you talk too: that would be valid as most don't speak Greek (i.e. understand the Greek terms theosis, theoria, etc). Most don't understand the difference between the two theologies and would probably say there is no difference. Until you start pointing out this stuff..that is. I'd dare say that the whole idea of seeing God or obtaining gnosis scares the Holy daylights out of them. And we won't even touch that there is no such thing as "hell" in the bible.. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Storm, discussions with LoveMonkey are subject to periodic outbursts of anger and resentment against Catholic sins of the past and distrust of Catholic actions in the present. It's just part of the landscape. Get used to it.
To answer your original quesiton, you may wish to look at what Jean-Yves Lacoste has to say in the Encyclopedia of Christian Theology. The article on "Holiness' starts on page 712. The specific discussion of divinization is on page 715. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Grievances against Pseudo-Richard
Moved back here from User talk:LoveMonkey because LoveMonkey thinks the move was inappropriate. I disagree but I'm not going to get in a tussle over whether or not it was appropriate.
Well at least Richard did not tell me to stick in my ear this time.  So when Richard isn't making a bigger mess and protecting some editors like Esoglou while reprimanding other editors for like behavior (i.e. Leadwind) he's telling people to do things like assume good faith and be civil yet in this link you can see that he's allowed to get frustrated but no one else is. Please.LoveMonkey (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Funny you should mention that as I have not interrupted any of your correspondence with other Wikipedia editors about articles that you and I have not participated on. And which you have shown no interest. You decide to chide in with your unasked for opinion recently on mine.  Now how did you find that question relevant to this? I would say you popping in appeared to be threatening. As look at Andrew's response to your unrequested intervention on things that have nothing to do with you. Why would Andrew respond to your posting by saying "No problem with me." Richard? Why are you following me and my edits around Wikipedia? I have not edited on the many articles you haunt here (i.e. Catholic church) If anyone is wikihound its you and your here comment is proof of that. But again excuse and deny as you had no business responding to my verification of that source. Nor telling me there is nothing I can do to you about your behavior and that you can do what you want and what administrator is going to stop you.i.e. " Don't like my hypocrisy? Then go find an admin and ask him for relief" "And stick it in your ear." Not my words those are Richard's. LoveMonkey(talk) 19:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- As for the comment on Andrew Lancaster's Talk Page, I saw his response on your Talk Page. I was wondering what the question was so I went to his Talk Page and then did a Google Search in an attempt to provide a more helpful response. I reported my findings. If you thought it wasn't helpful for me to do so, I'm sorry. My intentions were good. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Umm... I'm not touching the actual content of this dispute with a ten-foot pole. So, please, no one accuse me of taking sides here. But I do agree with Richard that an article talk page is an utterly inappropriate location for this conversation. Perhaps, instead of an article talk page or LM's user talk page, this should go on the Wikiquette alert noticeboard or something. Anything. Just not here. If I were a new user, I'd be scared away from Wikipedia if I saw a discussion like this on an article talk page. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well said, Phatius McBluff. It seems like anytime people start commenting on one another's behaviour and making personal remarks, the other parties get defensive and start making remarks too.
- Pseudo-Richard, people hate it when their talk page posts get removed or moved. It would be better in the future to simply ask that that part of the conversation be taken elsewhere, to WQA perhaps, and leave the talk page posts intact even though they are off-topic. That's my opinion.
- LoveMonkey, some of your remarks on this page are guaranteed to inflame feelings and make people defensive rather than lead to improvements in the article. Please desist from remarks such as "This article has been white washed by Roman Catholic POV pushing editors"; Pseudo-Richard, please don't tell people to stick it in their ear. They are very unlikely to stick it in their ear but rather will just give you another earful.
- I know it sounds trite but please try to focus on the content and not make remarks about one another's behavior. Regards, --Diannaa (Talk) 17:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Westminster definition of Deification rejected?
Is there a reason why the Westminster definition of "Deification" in orthodoxy is being repeatedly deleted and rejected by Esoglou?
The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology contains the following definition of what "deification" is for Orthodoxy: 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.' ...
I fail to see the reason why this addition continues to be deleted.
Much appreciation and thanks.
- It has not been deleted. Since it concerns the definition of what "deification" is for Orthodoxy, it was placed in the section headed "Eastern Orthodox theology", where it belongs. Esoglou (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
"Orthodoxy" above doesn't equate to "Eastern Orthodox Theology"! The Westminster Dictionary is in the vein of Reformed Churches out of Calvin's teachings, not Eastern Orthodox Theology. The definition might be better represented in the Protestant as such since it is directly taken from a Protestant vein of theology.
Section on "Vision of God"
The content of the section about "vision of God" is unrelated to that of the cited source. To reflect what the source says of "vision of God" (theoria), it should be rewritten as follows:
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." Esoglou (talk) 07:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)