Talk:Theological differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

What the revelation of the light of Tabor called theoria specifically is via Palamas

See also: Philokalia

Just for the sake of making this as clear a distinction as can be done here. In the process or metamorphasis called Theosis a person whom has theoria is one whom has witnessed the uncreated light of Tabor. This is not something as clear and defined in Western Christianity. Nor is the beautification vision as clear and repeatable a thing as what is called Orthodoxy (it appears to be a forgotten approximation as such and one used to one up rather then a clearly defined goal dictated to all Western Christians). I realize now that Esoglou is completely clueless about what these things people in the East are actually saying and what they actually are and what the East holds as their actual meaning. Esoglou is completely ignorant of what all of this is actually saying. I will attempt to say it in a Western way so as to explain for people whom read this to make up their minds and show just how radically different Orthodox Christianity is and what is being said of it by the West. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In the East the pagan world had teachings or lessons on Gods. These Gods usually where given names but were based on phenomenons like love or war or music or Good fortune. These Old Gods where as much events as personas that one saw as instigators of those events. When one saw or validated their God they did so through these very worldly events. Their knowledge of these Gods was mostly the same. Philosophy was the creation of systems of these Gods (as Phenomenons) and how the mix and match of them manifest the material world i.e. Metaphysical systems. The knowledge derived from contemplating these systems was the gnosis of the Mystery religions (please forgive my extremely over simplification for the sake of my overarching point). However-When the first Christians went out and said to people that they saw a light that was immaterial a light that gave no heat. And that they saw this light after becoming Christian they were saying that the Church validated that which is beyond creation and was also in creation. [1]

The idea of creation is also called finiteness and once one sees that finiteness is a manifestation of our fallen nature and that this nature is not a physical one but one based on the concept of free will one then sees the limits of self and individualism. One then wishes for a completeness beyond the concepts of beginning (birth) and end (death) so critical to giving actual meaning to the word I or self (angst, inertia also called the sleepiness or dreamlike existence, ennui, dread, nihilism, meaninglessness, despondency). For the most clearest in a Western way of saying this see Dostoevsky's Notes from underground. Gnosis as such is limited and if only a knowledge of the self is of the finite via repetition (called self-reflection), this repetition is an absurdity a fiction as V. Lossky called it. Truly infinite has no beginning and also no end no point of restart no tail to swallow no cycle, no Æon. Cycle creates time. Ancient Christianity is the reconciliation of the finite and the infinite. Not the destruction of the finite by the infinite. As finiteness is not as taught in the old pagan systems -a by product of the composite of metaphysical principles that too are logical. Finiteness is a manifestation of the sarx (that which dies, the sarcophagus, the death, the fallen nature). [2]

As the metaphysical was, is- uncreated but yet we could still validate it as an actual activity or occurrence. The Tabor light (transcends metaphysics, being, ontology) as the actual experience of the infinite, origination not crafting or mixing and matching but the immaterial light as the source of all existence (including sentience). It is none reflective (the entire scope of it as part of theosis) it is both enstasis and exstasis. As the nous as pure consciousness in the tabor light transcends finiteness and self but does not (again) destroy it. One has union without loss or merging or desolving like a drop of water in an infinite sea (as in Orientalism that be Mystery Religions or the Miaphysite) one keeps their consciousness (in full nous, without loss of nous) in union. It is the manifestation of the Holy Spirit and is the Holy Spirit.

When people within the church community broke away from society and went into the desert to refine this potential gift they developed a way of life centered on not only obtaining this experience (of God) but also of making that experience last as long as possible. Everything else to them was called "worldly" or of the "sarx" or pagan. To obtain this vision of God permanently is to achieve what is called deification or theosis. Gnosticism (as it is called in the West) was a cultural war between the Pagan elites and initiates of the Mystery Religions and those they employed to use various "tricks" to distort or under mine the Orthodox. These cults (another term different between East and West) engaged in distorting the churches teachings to devest people of their Judeo-Christian belief and then via those terms common to the different cultures initiate those people into Pagan Metaphysics. The Eastern Churches early heresies and their wars on those heresies involved developing theological understandings to combat these tactics. And these theological lessons where then later attacked and or under mined via lack of understanding in the West by Western Christianity.

This is what St Anthony, St John Climacus, St Symeon the New Theologian and St Gregory Palamas are talking about as being the goal of Christianity. This goal is for the Monastic and the layman. It is the way of life that accommodates this goal that is called Orthodox. Esoglou has made no mention of monks who see the Tabor light. Nor does Esoglou even understand or appear to understand WHAT THAT IS. Because if Esoglou understood any of this Esoglou would not be making the edits Esoglou is nor arguing in the way that Esoglou is. As this conduct betrays an ignorance of what is actually being stated. Again for one to have achieved Theoria means that they have seen the light. The experience of the Tabor light the uncreated photomos is the stated goal of all Orthodox monastics and is the primary activity that they engage in. [3]

This above is what is the goal of all Orthodox Christians via the ascetic practices of the Orthodox Church developed by the ascetics and given to the laymen in order to attain this goal. The goal is given various names theosis, acquisition of the Holy Spirit, salvation etc, etc. Oneness with the God. Likened to the 8th day. When one obtains this mystical goal one has achieved likeness to Christ. This obtaining of the Tabor light and it's effects are foreign and not at all the shared goal of Western Christianity. Whom instead seek after what is called an Neurobiological mental disease rooted in agnosticism by the East. [4] And agnosticism seeks not to find and experience the uncreated or the Holy Spirit or the infinite in this life but rather seek to absolve ones' self from a fearsome judgment of hell. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Roman Catholic sources accusing Eastern Orthodoxy of practicing Magic

The New Advent accuses Eastern Orthodox ascetics after saint Symeon the New Theologian of practicing magic based on Hesychastic practises.

But it was Simeon, "the new theologian" (c. 1025-c. 1092; see Krumbacher, op. cit., 152-154), a monk of Studion, the "greatest mystic of the Greek Church" (loc. cit.), who evolved the quietist theory so elaborately that he may be called the father of Hesychasm. For the union with God in contemplation (which is the highest object of our life) he required a regular system of spiritual education beginning with baptism and passing through regulated exercises of penance and asceticism under the guidance of a director. But he had not conceived the grossly magic practices of the later Hesychasts; his ideal is still enormously more philosophical than theirs. There seems also to have been a strong element of the pantheism that so often accompanies mysticism in the fully developed Hesychast system. By contemplating the uncreated light one became united with God so intimately that one became absorbed in Him. This suspicion of pantheism (never very remote from neo-Platonic theories) is constantly insisted on by the opponents of the system. [5] LoveMonkey (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

One article in the Catholic Encyclopedia reported, a century ago, that the Spanish bishop Priscillian and several of his followers were condemned by a civil tribunal for practising magic, and a transcribed version of that article has been put only line by newadvent.org (a scanned copy of the exact original text is also available online): but what is the article that LoveMonkey is referring to - rather what are the sources (plural) that he is referring to? Esoglou (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. Why if the source is so wrong is it still online. As Orthodox Christians as anyone can go to Google and type Hesychasm and that is the article they see. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

At last we learn what you are referring to: Adrian Fortescue's article (just one) of a century ago. Well, Fortescue did write that "the later Hesychasts" (whoever they were) indulged in "grossly magic practices". You can put that fact in the article if you wish. If you don't put it in, it is hard to see why it should be discussed on a Talk page devoted to improving the article and not to providing a forum for discussing the topic of the article. Esoglou (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The link is visible in the post I made. You can put your mouse over the link and on the bottom of your browser it will tell you the website. Your wasting time and apparently back to trying to frustrate people. How is it that if the New Advent is so out dated and wrong there is no officials from the Roman Catholic church condemning it? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You have quite a strange idea of the importance of that old publication by a New York commercial company. Do you imagine their publication was an official document of the Church? The articles in it are only like the thousands of articles published every year by Catholics who do not speak in the name of the Church. But perhaps I should not have responded even with this comment: when you say "the link is visible in the post I made", do you mean that there is in the article a reference to what Fortescue said of the later Hesychasts? Where? If there is nothing in the article, this is not the place to discuss it. Esoglou (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No I don't it is a common and easliy accessible source available online to read and people commonly do and it explicitly portrays itself as a Roman Catholic source. All of which is not my doing nor the doing of the Orthodox church. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The point here is that, at some point in the past, some Catholics considered Hesychasm to involve the practice of Magic. Would this be worth mentioning in the article on Hesychasm? Yes. Does it belong in this article? Probably not. One of the major reasons this article is waaay too long is that there seems to be a desire to document every last grievance that the Orthodox have against the Catholics. This is not conducive to a good article that is readable and understandable (the current revision of this article being far from being either of those). Let's focus on the main points and leave the picayune details for subsidiary articles. --Richard S (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The belief of one early-20th-century Catholic that the hesychastic practices of some people in a yet earlier period were a form of magic is unlikely to be a major grievance to anybody other than the one complaining here. Esoglou (talk) 07:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard no there is not a desire to post every last grievance. There are historical grievances that there is no article at all on Wikipedia about. You separated up the ecclesiastical ones to another article. You are contradicting yourself. Also what happened to trying to compress the article? Richard? I say for the sake of compromise that since Richard did indeed create this article (from the East West schism no less) [6] that Richard stop giving canned responses and stop making excuses for Esoglou's zealot behavior against me posting what the Orthodox ACTUALLY say. And instead try and compress this article and re-write it. Even though Richard can't seem to control his temper (don't tell me you've forgotten your past ugliness-es) I really don't care. As I think the world of Richard. In specific that Richard is an exceptional writer. So if I have to challenge you to get a better article I am only reflecting the condition, common to all editors here on wikipedia. Oh, we will be challenged. So again Richard without more bickering I would ask you to help rewrite the Cassian, free will section of the article here on the talkpage. And since you are so often defending Esoglou it just might be that he will treat your work for this (as he has in the past) with disruption, but minimal disruption. Since it is becoming clear that Esoglou has not read any Orthodox sources on the article's subject from an Orthodox theologians point of view. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Orthodox teach that God is a Holy Fire

The Holy Fire of Pascha is also the River of Fire. As God is Heaven and God is Hell in Orthodox theology. God is the burning bush as the Theotokos being the first Christian was in the fire but not burned by the fire that is God. As each whom reach Theosis will be in the fire that is God but will not be harmed by it, rather it will be pure joy to them. The light of Tabor is this same fire. When the Orthodox speak of the energy of God, God is fire God is light. [7]. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The current distortion of Metropolitain Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev statements

It is obvious that the Roman Catholic editor Esoglou wishes to deny what is actually being stated and wants instead to misrepresent the actual statements of officials in the Orthodox church so as to deny what distinctions are actually being pointed out. Here is the passage from Metropolitan Alfeyev's website.

"‘WHAT IS HELL?’

‘Fathers and teachers! I ask: What is Hell? I answer: Suffering on account of the impossibility to love any longer’. These are the words of Elder Zosima, Dostoyevsky’s celebrated monk in The Brothers Karamazov.

Why Hell? many people ask. Why does God condemn people to eternal damnation? How can the image of God the Judge be reconciled with the New Testament message of God as love? St Isaac the Syrian answers these questions in the following way: there is no person who would be deprived of God’s love, and there is no place which would be devoid of it; everyone who deliberately chooses evil instead of good deprives himself of God’s mercy. The very same Divine love which is a source of bliss and consolation for the righteous in Paradise becomes a source of torment for sinners, as they cannot participate in it and they are outside of it.

It is therefore not God Who mercilessly prepares torments for a person, but rather the person himself who chooses evil and then suffers from its consequences. There are people who deliberately refuse to follow the way of love, who do evil and harm to their neighbours: these are the ones who will be unable to reconcile themselves with the Supreme Love when they encounter it face to face. Someone who is outside of love during his earthly life will not find a way to be inside it when he departs from the body. He will find himself in ‘the valley of the shadow of death’ (Ps.23:4), ‘the darkness’ and ‘the land of forgetfulness’ (Ps.88:12), of which the psalms speak. Jesus called this place, or rather this condition of the soul after death, ‘the outer darkness’ (Matt.22:13) and ‘the Hell of fire’ (Matt.5:22).

One should note that the notion of Hell has been distorted by the coarse and material images in which it was clothed in Western medieval literature. One recalls Dante with his detailed description of the torments and punishment which sinners undergo. Christian eschatology should be liberated from this imagery: the latter reflects a Catholic medieval approach to the Novissima with its ‘pedagogy of fear’ and its emphasis on the necessity of satisfaction and punishment. Michelangelo’s Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel depicts Christ hurling into the abyss all those who dared to oppose Him. ‘This, to be sure, is not how I see Christ’, says Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov). ‘...Christ, naturally, must be in the centre, but a different Christ more in keeping with the revelation that we have of Him: Christ immensely powerful with the power of unassuming love’. If God is love, He must be full of love even at the moment of the Last Judgment, even when He pronounces His sentence and condemns one to death.

For an Orthodox Christian, notions of Hell and eternal torments are inseparably linked with the mystery that is disclosed in the liturgical services of Holy Week and Easter, the mystery of Christ’s descent into Hell and His liberation of those who were held there under the tyranny of evil and death. The Church teaches that, after His death on the Cross, Christ descended into the abyss in order to annihilate Hell and death, and destroy the horrendous kingdom of the Devil. Just as Christ had sanctified the Jordan, which was filled with human sin, by descending into its waters, by descending into Hell He illumined it entirely with the light of His presence. Unable to tolerate this holy invasion, Hell surrendered: ‘Today Hell groans and cries aloud: It had been better for me, had I not accepted Mary’s Son, for He has come to me and destroyed my power; He has shattered the gates of brass, and as God He has raised up the souls that once I held’... In the words of St John Chrysostom, ‘Hell was embittered when it met Thee face to face below. It was embittered, for it was rendered void. It was embittered, for it was mocked. It was embittered, for it was slain. It was embittered, for it was despoiled. It was embittered, for it was fettered’. This does not mean that in the wake of Christ’s descent into it, Hell no longer exists. It does exist but is already sentenced to death."

Here's the sentence that Esoglou is sourcing with the above source.

"They view hell as separation from God, not spatially, since "hell is a point not in space but in the soul", but in being "outside of" God's love, since "everyone who deliberately chooses evil instead of good deprives himself of God's mercy"

Please note in Metropolitan Alfeyev's passage there is no part of it that states that in Hell man is separated from God. Nor is man separated from the present's of God. What is distorted here by the Roman Catholic church is that one one is separated from God's Love. IN HELL ONE IS NOT SEPARATED FROM GOD'S LOVE it is GOD'S LOVE AS AN ENERGY OF GOD THAT BURNS THEM. BECAUSE THEY DID NOT USE THEIR LIFETIME TO RECONCILE WITH GOD. SINCE THEY ARE UNRECONCILED TO IT AND WHEN GIVEN NUMEROUS CHANCES TO CHOSE TO RECONCILE THEY CHOSE OTHER WISE. Hell is that God can not now excuse his mercy on their condition and allot them that lifetime again to reconcile. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The quotations I gave are exact: the first from Kallistos Ware; the second and third, "outside of (God's love)" and "everyone who..." from Alfeyev. Interpret them as you will, but that is what they say. Esoglou (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou is using wikipedia to attempt to concoct apologies for the Roman Catholic church with the words of our current alive and well church Officials. Note if I post an Orthodox position that I then source and then turn around and give a Roman Catholic one and source it this is not the same as what Esoglou is doing as he has no Roman Catholic sources to address this point of contention. Esoglou instead is twisting and distorting and causing contradiction in what the actual sources esoglou is slandering. As again Metropolitan Alfeyev should not be tacked onto the end of that run on sentence to source it as it contradicts what is one Metropolitan Alfeyev's website. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

He does say it, does he not? Esoglou (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is what he (Metropolitan Alfeyev) says

"St Isaac the Syrian answers these questions in the following way: there is no person who would be deprived of God’s love, and there is no place which would be devoid of it; everyone who deliberately chooses evil instead of good deprives himself of God’s mercy. The very same Divine love which is a source of bliss and consolation for the righteous in Paradise becomes a source of torment for sinners, as they cannot participate in it and they are outside of it."

Here is what you have him (Metropolitan Alfeyev) say.

""They view hell as separation from God, not spatially, since "hell is a point not in space but in the soul", but in being "outside of" God's love, since "everyone who deliberately chooses evil instead of good deprives himself of God's mercy"

Why is it that Metropolitan Alfeyev says God's love burns people in hell and you have him say that people burn because they are separated from his love? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that I should attribute the quotations to Isaac the Syrian? I think it is enough to attribute them as now to the catechism, whether they are Alfayev's words or Isaac's. And they are exact quotations from the catechism, aren't they? Esoglou (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I just posted the entire passage of what is hell from Metropolitan Alfeyev's website. That is the source that you have misused. I posted the quote above as did Metropolitan Alfeyev on Metropolitan Alfeyev's website under Metropolitan Alfeyev's topic What is Hell?. It is Metropolitan Alfeyev whom used St Isaac's quote. Why can you not see this? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

For any other editors reading this notice how Esoglou is now conveniently incompetent. As the sentence stated that sinners are outside of Paradise in the last sentence Metropolitan Alfeyev states from Isaac "Paradise becomes a source of torment for sinners, as they cannot participate in it and they are outside of it.'

See how editor Esoglou with their agenda based editing distorts what people actually say in order to force it to prop up their agenda. This is how the preceding sentence can say

"there is no person who would be deprived of God’s love, and there is no place which would be devoid of it; everyone who deliberately chooses evil instead of good deprives himself of God’s mercy."

LoveMonkey (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have raised no objection to the passage you quote. What is your objection to my quote: "Because, as an online Eastern Orthodox catechism states, 'everyone who deliberately chooses evil instead of good deprives himself of God's mercy', those in hell are 'outside of' God's love"? Esoglou (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

HOW CAN SOMETHING BE THE SOURCE OF TORMENT AND PEOPLE ARE BEING SAID TO BE TORMENTED BY IT AND YET OUTSIDE OR SEPARATED FROM IT? They can't be Esoglou. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou is also speaking blasphemy against the context of the Eastern Orthodox theology as represented in the Holy Fire of Pascha. Esoglou is so ignorant of this very sensitive Orthodox theology "event", he depicts Metropolitan Alfeyev's comment as though they 1. Are NOT talking about the very explicit teaching of hell in Dostoevsky and are doing commentary on that specifically. 2. that Metropolitan Alfeyev does not know what the Holy Fire is. I have seen no mention from Esoglou about the fire that is God and how that teaching is part of hell being despoiled as part of Pascha and WHAT THAT ACTUALLY MEANS AS THE HOLY FIRE. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You ask: "HOW CAN SOMETHING etc." Perhaps you should direct your question to Metropolitan Alfeyev. I am only quoting from his catechism, not trying to interpret him. Esoglou (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou if Alfeyev never says -"Hell is separation from God". Then anything saying that Alfeyev means that while not specifically saying that is an interpretation. You know this and you don't care. You are ignoring the obvious in this. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Love, since Alfeyev does say (no "if" about it) that sinners do not participate in the love of God and are outside of it, any claim that he did not say that is obvious nonsense. Esoglou (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Does the catechism say the wicked are outside of God's love?

If you do not understand the teaching you should not be teaching it and or misrepresenting it. But then that's pretty much what you represent anyway isn't it. The passage says very clearly people are outside of God's mercy (not his love). This is part of the teaching of Hell in Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov (which Esoglou is ignoring). It says that God's mercy is the life he gives each person (in time and space) to prove themselves by choosing to love. Dostoevsky states that once that life is past that there is a gulf or abyss between the afterlife and the life God gave us on earth (God's Mercy). Not between God's love and man. You pickup on part of it, out of context and twisted it and distorted it for your own agenda without respect for what it is actually addressing. God's mercy = time or opportunity to reconcile with him. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you denying that the metropolitan's online catechism says: "The very same Divine love which is a source of bliss and consolation for the righteous in Paradise becomes a source of torment for sinners, as they cannot participate in it and they are outside of it" (emphasis added)? If not, how can you say: "The passage says very clearly people are outside of God's mercy (not his love)" (emphasis added)? Is that denial of what is in the online catechism the basis of your objection to what I wrote: "Because, as an online Eastern Orthodox catechism states, 'everyone who deliberately chooses evil instead of good deprives himself of God's mercy', those in hell are 'outside of' God's love"? Esoglou (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you denying that the Metropolitan's is saying

"St Isaac the Syrian answers these questions in the following way: there is no person who would be deprived of God’s love, and there is no place which would be devoid of it; everyone who deliberately chooses evil instead of good deprives himself of God’s mercy. The very same Divine love which is a source of bliss and consolation for the righteous in Paradise becomes a source of torment for sinners, as they cannot participate in it and they are outside of it."" LoveMonkey (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Far from denying it, I am quoting from it. You, on the other hand, seem to be denying what it says about sinners being unable to participate in Divine love and being "outside of it". Now what is your objection to "Because, as an online Eastern Orthodox catechism states, 'everyone who deliberately chooses evil instead of good deprives himself of God's mercy', those in hell are 'outside of' God's love"? Esoglou (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The passage stops making sense when you take it out of context. You have not read the Dostoevsky that it is referring to and are instead just searching with Google to find anything Orthodox that says "hell is separation from God" however you think that this one is good for your original research and WP:Synth and it is actually teaching exactly the opposite. And when you treat it as you do it stops making sense all together. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

What part of "Because, as an online Eastern Orthodox catechism states, 'everyone who deliberately chooses evil instead of good deprives himself of God's mercy', those in hell are 'outside of' God's love" do you fail to make sense of? Esoglou (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Esoglou wrote
You, on the other hand, seem to be denying what it says about sinners being unable to participate in Divine love and being "outside of it".

---

LoveMonkey's reply
Passage says deprived (not separated) from God's mercy "there is no person who would be deprived of God’s love, and there is no place which would be devoid of it; everyone who deliberately chooses evil instead of good deprives himself of God’s mercy."

---

Esoglou wrote
Now what is your objection to "Because, as an online Eastern Orthodox catechism states, 'everyone who deliberately chooses evil instead of good deprives himself of God's mercy', those in hell are 'outside of' God's love"?

---

LoveMonkey's reply
Because God's mercy is not God's love. Two different things and I have already explained that and you have decided to ignore what I have already posted answering that. I have repeatedly explained and you continually refuse to ignore my explanations and instead keep asking the same questions over and over again. Which according to Wikipedia policy is called wiki hounding. You act as if everyone is here to satisfy you and your opinion even at the expense their own confession. You are ignorant of Orthodox theology and are directly going to cause an WP:Office as the OCA website clearly states.
According to the saints, the "fire" that will consume sinners at the coming of the Kingdom of God is the same "fire" that will shine with splendor in the saints. It is the "fire" of God's love; the "fire" of God Himself who is Love. "For our God is a consuming fire" (Hebrews 12:29) who "dwells in unapproachable light." (I Timothy 6:16). [8] LoveMonkey (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I quote from the passage: "The very same Divine love which is a source of bliss and consolation for the righteous in Paradise becomes a source of torment for sinners, as they cannot participate in it and they are outside of it" (emphasis added)? How can you deny that this says sinners cannot participate in Divine love and are outside of Divine love? Esoglou (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have already explained and specifically addressed this on the talkpage here. You are ignoring it and asking over and over again if I am denying what you have interpreted it to say rather then what it actually says as it clearly states ""there is no person who would be deprived of God’s love, and there is no place which would be devoid of it; everyone who deliberately chooses evil instead of good deprives himself of God’s mercy." I have added what the OCA states is the proper teaching of hell to the article. It is consistent with the Metropolitan's as long as it is put in context which I have pointed out and done. The OCA's number is on the website you can call them and argue with them, on how you don't like what they say. As what the Metropolitan is saying in context is the same thing and you are here to play on people's translation problems are argue like this to further your own personal agenda at the expense of what is clearly already stated. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not disputing anything you may be saying about other sources. The only disagreement voiced concerrns your objecting to the quotation from Metropolitan A's catechism. That catechism is a reliable source for an important Eastern Orthodox view. Speaking of Divine love, the catechism does say that the wicked are deprived of it and are outside of it. The catechism says so explicitly and clearly. Esoglou (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The Metropolitan does not say what you are saying that he has said nor is he saying ANYTHING that goes against what the OCA is saying. That's where it ends. STOP engaging in WP:OR and WP:Synth to make up and or create apologizes for your opinion. Let alone creating them by misquoting and manipulating Orthodox theologians to say what you want them to say. As anyone can see whom reads his website for themselves that if they listen to your interpretation of his words he will contradict himself and not make sense. For anyone whom actually wants to understand what the Metropolitan is actually talking about and how it is the same as Dostoevsky and also the OCA they should read the passage from Brothers Karamazov that Metropolitan Alfeyev is referencing in the opening sentence of passage that Esoglou is misquoting here. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Never mind what you imagine that I am saying that A said. What did he himself say? Did he or did he not say: "The very same Divine love which is a source of bliss and consolation for the righteous in Paradise becomes a source of torment for sinners, as they cannot participate in it and they are outside of it"? I may interpret that in one way or another. You may interpret it in one way or another. But whatever way we interpret it, he did say that. Do you deny that he said it? Esoglou (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You are still arguing and you have not read the Dostoevsky and what it says and what the Metropolitan is talking about in his response to it. You are ignoring the whole thing because you want Orthodox sources to say that hell is separation from God. When the passage that Metropolitan Alfeyev wrote is in reference to what Dostoevsky was teaching about hell. It is not in a vacuum and all alone by itself it is a response to what Dostoevsky stated. I have reposted over and over and over again what Alfeyev stated and if you would stop and actually pay attention but you'll not that. Go read the Dostoevsky before you take Alfeyev out of context as teaching heresy against his own church. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Now you have even tried falsifying the quotation in the article. In view of your persistent refusal to answer the question whether A did write what he is quoted as having written, it seems best to discontinue the attempt. Esoglou (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You'd better report me. Since I just literally posted the quote word for word. Which shows just how inappropriate it is. Only Esoglou would claim that me posting the source word for word into the article is falsifying it. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Intervention by Richard

Forgive me if I am missing something but this discussion seems to be around the question of whether God withdraws his love from the sinner or whether the sinner shuts out God's love. I am not convinced that this is that important a question. It seems clear that, whichever way it happens, the sinner winds up "outside God's love". Now, if you want to chase down theologians who insist that God's love is always there and available even if the sinner rejects it, go right ahead. It's really a fine line between God withdrawing his love because the sinner has sinned and the sinner rejecting the God's love by sinning. Either way, the sinner is outside of God's love and the precise timing and causality of that situation is unimportant compared to the fact that it is sin which separates man from God. (A point which I think all Christians, Jews and Muslims can agree on.) --Richard S (talk) 04:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Your interventions are helpful and I am grateful for them. Could you please intervene more often, with a follow-up where useful? The problem here is LoveMonkey's refusal to accept what could well be described as the evidence of his eyes. See above #Do some Eastern Orthodox theologians say hell is separation from God?, where in spite of the citation of half a dozen Eastern Orthodox theologians LoveMonkey still maintains that the only belief in the Eastern Orthodox Church is that there is no separation in any sense. The purpose seems to be to build up a false picture of a one and only Eastern Orthodox belief against which to contrast a Roman Catholic belief. And here too, presumably for the same purpose, there is a refusal to admit that the Alfeyev catechism does speak of those in hell as being outside God's love. (LM even changed from "love" to "mercy" the reference in a quotation from that catechism, thus falsifying the quotation - and later pretended that the reference to falsification regarded a later non-falsification change by him.)

There is no dispute that from the side of God God's love is always there. He never withdraws his love. The dispute is whether from the side of the sinner there is a withdrawal from God's love, so that the sinner can be said to be separated from God (by his own attitude, not God's), and (again by his own attitude, not God's) to be "outside of" God's love. LoveMonkey, on the basis of what he holds to be the Eastern Orthodox belief, refuses to admit that the Alfeyev catechism does speak of sinners as "outside of" God's love.

I am afraid that you are incorrect in thinking that "all Christians, Jews and Muslims can agree" that "the sinner is outside of God's love and the precise timing and causality of that situation is unimportant compared to the fact that it is sin which separates man from God". There is one who does not agree. Esoglou (talk) 07:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see you post Richard. Please read what the actual Orthodox opinion on Heaven and Hell is here. [9] What Esoglou has done with this specific point of contention is deny what it is saying IN WHOLE. I added a passage into the article about Hell in contemporary Orthodox literature. Esoglou read a tiny part of it took it out of context and then added Metropolitan Alfeyev's comments to the article here. My issue is that Alfeyev was not teaching what Hell is by itself all alone and there as a stand alone he was talking about what Dostoevsky said about Hell. Not what the Orthodox church teaches as theologically correct about hell. Esoglou is engaging in WP:OR, WP:Synth and also undue weight. You like to complain about the article size and yet this simply has to be included and also it was included by Esoglou twice and it was included as something that stands alone rather they a commentary as Alfeyev made it on the passage from Dostoevsky's the Brothers Karamazov (Which is not theological but like Dante allegorical). Esoglou just can't seem to understand that it is not correct the way Esoglou has took it out of the context as a reflection on Dostoevsky and now is saying Alfeyev is teaching that Hell is separation from God. This is completely against what the OCA says. And it is against what Other Orthodox Russian (THE OCA IS UNDER PATRIARCH KIRILL OF MOSCOW) church bodies teach as the Orthodox teaching of hell. i.e. WP:undue weight.LoveMonkey (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

OR on the Roman Catholic Eastern Orthodox theological differences article

Editor Esoglou took 5 different sources and cherry picked what they said to merge them together to make it appears as though they are opposed to the theology that some of them actually teach. 1.Diff [10]

• 1. John Dresko

Fr. John Dresko

• 2. Church Holy Cross paper on asceticism

Orthodox Asceticism)

• 3. Metropolitian Alfeyev

"

• 4. Church website in England.

ROCOR Diocese of Great Britain and Ireland

• 5. Aristotle Papanikolaou

Please note none of these sources say what the editor is attributing to them. None of these sources specifically say the Orthodox teaching on hell is that Hell is separation from God. The last source actually when speaking directly to that question states what is considered the Orthodox position (which is Hell and Heaven are the condition of a person in the presences of God).

Regarding specific conditions of after-life existence and eschatology, Orthodox thinkers are generally reticent; yet two basic shared teachings can be singled out. First, they widely hold that immediately following a human being's physical death, his or her surviving spiritual dimension experiences a foretaste of either heaven or hell. (Those theological symbols, heaven and hell, are not crudely understood as spatial destinations but rather refer to the experience of God's presence according to two different modes.) Thinking Through Faith: New Perspectives from Orthodox Christian Scholars page 195 By Aristotle Papanikolaou, Elizabeth H. Prodromou [11] LoveMonkey (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Holy Fire of Jerusalem supposedly related to Catholic teaching on hell

Would LoveMonkey please explain what the following paragraph has to do with Roman Catholic teaching on hell, the subsection in which he insists on inserting it:

Pope Gregory IX denounced the Holy Fire of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre as a fraud and barred Franciscans from having anything to do with it. Holy Land chronicles became peppered with scathing accounts of the ceremony. A fifteenth-century Franciscan, Francesco Suriano, detailed the unruly emotionalism he witnessed before observing: The said fire, however, does not descend in truth (and in the opinion of us friars), although all the nations save us friars feign this falsehood to be true. (Reference: Sparks from the Holy Fire Victoria Clark [12]). Esoglou (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do you ignore that I have added a section in the preceding Orthodox teaching on hell into the article about the Holy Fire? You are reverting and deleting my contributions today and missed that? As my addition of the Roman Catholic position on it (to the Roman Catholic section) would be appropriate to the Roman Catholic section. But just one more example of Esoglou claiming incompetency as a means to justify his disruptive wiki hounding. LoveMonkey (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I did notice that you had inserted the following:

God in Eastern Orthodoxy is taught as an all consuming fire. It is this mystic fire that is taught as the very essence of Orthodox Christianity as the fire or light with no heat to those whom have chosen God is depicted as the light of Tabor sought by the heyschast Monks (for example those of Mount Athos) and also is celebrated every Pascha (Easter) by the Orthodox as the Holy Fire miracle in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

How is this supposed to illuminate the supposed relationship between Pope Gregory IX's agreement with the many who consider the supposed yearly miracle of the Holy Fire to be a fraud (as mentioned in the Holy Fire article) and Roman Catholic teaching on hell? Esoglou (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

So Esoglou admits that they are wrong. That the Pope Gregory passage is the Roman Catholic response to the Holy Fire? What is Esoglou now saying? Since all of the sudden Esoglou acknowledges that in the teaching that God is a fire that is joy to the saved and burns those in condemnation is the Orthodox teaching of hell? That being with God is both Heaven and Hell? Does Esoglou not know that Orthodox theology is actually called the Holy Fire based on the miracle of the Holy Fire? [13], [14] LoveMonkey (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If Orthodox theology were based on the supposed miracle of the Holy Fire - thank God that it isn't - it would have a very shaky foundation indeed. Catholic theology is based instead on Scripture and Tradition (as, indeed, is that of the Eastern Orthodox Church) and what a Pope says, either in favour of or against that alleged miracle, does not alter its teaching on hell one whit. Esoglou (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If Esoglou commentary where valid sourcing the article would be a complete fairytale, thank God it isn't. You have no such authority to be making such commentary. But hey go ahead and put in the article what you just posted about the superiority of the Catholic scholastic theology. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

What is in question is not scholasticism but the supposed relevance of what one Pope said about the supposed Holy Fire miracle and the teaching of the Catholic Church on hell. I didn't believe that you seriously meant what you said about that miracle being the basis of Eastern Orthodox theology. If that is the connection you see between the disbelief of that Pope in the miracle and the Roman Catholic doctrine on hell, I suppose that explanation should be put into the article. Esoglou (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It is called the Holy Fire which either burns (i.e. Hell) or brings joy, delight (i.e. Heaven). It appears that there will never be enough sources for Esoglou nor enough evidence and all of these theologians are wrong when they teach Orthodox theology that doesn't fit with Esoglou's opinion. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that the yearly Holy Fire is the very fire that burns those in hell and delights those in heaven? And that the Pope who called it ordinary naturally produced fire was thereby blaspheming against the divine fire? Esoglou (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The fire of hell is the love God has for us. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Well then, are you saying that the yearly Holy Fire is the love God has for us? And that the Pope who called it ordinary naturally produced fire was thereby blaspheming against the love God has for us? I don't see how else that Pope's statement is related to Catholic teaching on hell. Can you explain more clearly the connection you see between Catholic teaching on hell and his statement about what, to all appearances, is material fire that consumes wax and oil? Esoglou (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

What do the sources say? From the Holy fire website [15]

"We welcome all of the non-Orthodox who doubt but who are well-meaning and who are genuinely looking for the Truth (not those who are looking for signs out of some morbid curiosity!) to visit the Temple on this day and to see for themselves the Uncreated Light of Christ shining. Because one of the greatest delusions in the West today is that they believe that the Energies of Christ are created. This miracle disproves this blasphemy in the best possible way. Glory be to our Orthodox God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit!"

Again Esoglou fighting over his own ignorance and expecting people to train and teach him what he should know already before even engaging in this. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

What does this say about Catholic teaching on hell? Please explain. Or explain what anything mentioned above says about Catholic teaching on hell. Esoglou (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like the Roman Catholic condemnation of the Holy Fire miracle in the Roman Catholic criticism section, move it and - the Holy Fire mention to it's own section. Your the one with that problem not me. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have moved it. Esoglou (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Examples of WP:OR in the article

• 1.Why is if Romanides is wrong or not on calling the final Hesychast council being debated in this article by Esoglou? [16] Why is Esoglou reverting and restoring this claim [17] when it has no bearing on the article's subject and is nothing more the Esoglou introducing into the article his own WP:OR in an attempt to discredit Romanides? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• 2. Now Esoglou rewrote the header to imply an argument from silence that only Romanides shares believes this about Augustine. [18] LoveMonkey (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• 3. Here Esoglou restores where Esoglou tries to put into the article Esoglou's opinion that Ted Campbell is not being consistent in his handling of Catechism of Philaret as a valid source for Orthodox theology[19]. Esoglou implies this by adding

"As for the substance of the doctrine contained in the Catechism, when Campbell sets forth the "Orthodox Teachings on Human Nature and Salvation" (including the afterlife), he repeatedly cites it as a source for knowledge of those teachings."

Note this has no bearing on the section nor the content of that section and is nothing more the Esoglou using Ted Campbell to source Esoglou's opionion of how Ted Campbell is not consistent in the way he uses the Catechism of Philaret. This has nothing to do with the article nor the section or subject that Esoglou has injected this into and it is obvious Original Research that Esoglou keeps restoring, reverting [20][21] after I remove it. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Before LM removed it, the praise given by an ecumenical council to Augustine was in the same section as Romanides's claim that a non-ecumenical council condemned his teaching in condemning someone else's, and there was good reason then to point out the difference in character between the two councils. LM reduced the section to the view of one theologian alone, and there was good reason then to point this out. LM claimed that Campbell was inconsistent, so there was good reason to point out that Campbell instead distinguished between the terminology (which he said was an obstacle to always using the Catechism of Philaret) and Campbell's own use of the the substance of the same Catechism for indicating what was Eastern Orthodox teaching on the afterlife. Esoglou (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

More OR from Esoglou. This article is about the Roman Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences. Esoglou is trying to obfuscate because Esoglou knows that Esoglou can not logically have it both ways. Either the East was ignorant of Augustine and made comments out of that ignorance or the East was not. Also how is it the section is on Hesychasm and that the section is on how Orthodox theologians see Heyschasm as the East finally finding out just what was actually wrong with Augustine's theology , then supposed to contain something about Augustine at an earlier council when they were un-informed. Also it is off topic to deny what these Orthodox theologians teach. John Romanides was as theology Professor at the University of Thessaloniki and represented the Orthodox church in inter-faith dialog in the World Council of Churches why is it that Esoglou is attacking these positions as exclusive to Romanides. This is very Western way to approach the actual substance of what Romanides states and is acting like Romanides is alone in his statements. Esoglou needs to stop with the Original Research and taking Orthodox theologians opinion out of context as I have showed that Romanides was not allow in his declarations here. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

When I pointed out that the section was reduced to two references to a single theologian, the existence of whose views I do not deny, what other one was lurking there unperceived? Esoglou (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

More ignoring or outright misrepresenting what I posted. Go look there are at least three. I have not even included Azkoul. You are very uninformed about Eastern Orthodox theology and much of your edit warring and disruptive behavior reflects that. As if Photius and Gennadius Scholarius are also just made up and did not say what they said. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Were they somewhere in the section? Esoglou (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean you did not notice what you removed? [22] LoveMonkey (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Not there then. Esoglou (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Dubious sourcing in article

Esoglou recently added a passage [ [23] Esoglou added the line

"Sin is the separation of the soul from God, sin leads to death (the absence of God) and captivity in hell. We understand then that 'hell' is in fact an unnatural state of the absence of God"

There are several problems with this addition.

• 1. There is no author given on the article.
• 2. The website explicitly states that "Views expressed on this site are those of the respective author and not necessarily of the editor, webmaster or any Orthodox jurisdiction." [24]
• 3 Undue weight. Again a random website and a random article are taking presendence over what the OCA website and at least 5 Orthodox theologians have stated that about the teaching of hell. Theologians whom are either University professors teaching Orthodox theology (Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos, George Metallinos) Orthodox church representatives to the World Council of Churches (John Romanides) and Professor Aristotle Papanikolaou [25] or even Vladimir Lossky. 16:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

These sources say no more and no less than what is attributed to them in the article. Esoglou (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

NO not one of them says that Hell in Orthodox theology is separation from God. The title of the section you put them in under says "Orthodox opinion that views separation of man from God as hell".

None of the sources say that. Not Metallinos not Romanides not one of them. And you restored the deleted content. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course they don't say that. They are not quoted for that. They are quoted as showing that, according to EO teaching, sin separates from God. Should I make that even more explicit. Esoglou (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to show how these sources you used for your OR and WP:Synth say what you have put in their mouths by your own interpretations of their words. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Which ones do you doubt? I will willingly remove anything that is not fully supported by the citations.

As for the first one mentioned above, you have noticed, I suppose, that I had modified the wording to indicate that what is quoted from that website of an Eastern Orthodox diocese (not a mere "random" parish site) is from a catechism for its faithful. Esoglou (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

post where each one specifically states that Hell is separation from God like the section header, title you are sourcing with their works. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

In general, they don't state that. What they are quoted for is the idea that separation from God does occur through sin. Do you deny that sin separates from God? Esoglou (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou just admitted that the sources do not say what Esoglou is attributing to them. So how then is Esoglou not interpreting? LoveMonkey (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, Esoglou reminded another editor that the article attributes to the sources, without interpretation, exactly what they do say. Esoglou (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary Esoglou said "'they don't state that". And is therefore ignoring what point of contention I have and not addressing that. As Esoglou is using people to say "Hell is separation from God" when Esoglou then admits that they "they don't state that". This is simple for outside people reading this but is lost on Esoglou. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

They state what they are quoted as stating, namely that separation from God is possible and does occur. They are not quoted as stating anything more than that. Nor are they intended to state anything more than that. Esoglou (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The article heading makes no such distinction that Roman Catholic's teaching on hell is that there is some sort of separation from God and that any separation from God in this life and the next is hell. None of the sources say anything about Orthodox theology teaching that Hell is separation from God and yet Esoglou has them under the header section in the article. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason why related matters should not be mentioned (in the way, for instance, that the material fire distributed every year in Jerusalem is mentioned, immediately above, in a section headed: "God's love in Orthodoxy taught as an all consuming fire"). Esoglou (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Again this was your problem and a problem you had, I had no problem with the data. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

restoration of duplicate information

I am attempting to reedit the article to remove as much of it as I can and attempt at the article size reduction per the talkpage comments here. Today I moved a chunk of information from the Hesychast section of the article to the section specific to Ausgustine.

I have tried to removed un-need and unnecessary and duplicate elaborations and commentary from the article

• 1. [26]
• 2. [27]
• 3. [28]
• 4. [29]
• 5. [30]
• 6. [31] I moved content here.

-Esoglou just restores the deleted data. Even after seeing the discussion on the talkpage here and replying to some of it to start removing or downsizing article.

• 1. [32]
• 2. Here Esoglou left this moved data in the article and then also restored the moved data to it's original spot. So the data would be in the article twice. [33]
• 3. [34]
• 4. [35]

LoveMonkey (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

One man's opinion of what is unnecessary is not always that of others. Esoglou (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. I have post specific Eastern Orthodox theologians and their work. You have done nothing to post the actual Roman Catholic position you have engaged in original research and trying to counter the Orthodox theologians through your own opinion and attempts to distort other Orthodox people opinion. None of this would hold up in any type of an acceptable form outside of a biased one for your own position. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Why I should be asked to post "the actual Roman Catholic position", when the subject is the variety of Eastern Orthodox views, is beyond me. I find it best to let this discussion (if it can be called that) drop. Esoglou (talk) 11:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Because one, you don't understand the Eastern Orthodox theology you are messing up and continue to do so. Because you have no respect for any opinion that disagrees with your own ecumenicist agenda, let alone various Eastern Orthodox theologians whom you Esoglou continue to distort and misrepresent. As for the actual Roman Catholic position on this you can not be trusted either as you have attempted to counter various Roman Catholic theologians and what they have said because their comments too are against your ecumenicist opinion. All I am doing is posting what is out there for people to read for themselves. I have not posted my opinion. I will say of my opinion that reason does nothing to better the situation and can not change it.

It is easier for people to cope when they "KNOW" that there is a God, not when they are given reasons for why there is one (but not the actual experience of God). Faith is hypostatic (an energy of it), not Kierkengaard's nonsense existentialism, that which is more reasoning and rationalization of things better left experienced and that don't need to be explained as something reasoned or rational. Existence as experience doesn't need nor has the time to stop and rationalize it, this is only people trying to control. Just as Esoglou is doing, rather than accepting things in Good Faith as is the agreement one makes in order to edit here on Wikipedia Esoglou is now acquiescing on this and instead now doing what Esoglou "feels" and "believes" is right. From Esoglou's ecumenist POV. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Reserving section on EOC theologians to one only

Because of one editor's insistence on removing two Orthodox theologians from a section on "Orthodox theologian comments on Augustine", I must raise the question here. They too are Orthodox. They too are theologians. They too are commenting (and at length) on Augustine. There seems to be no justification for excluding them and reserving a section on Orthodox theologian comments on Augustine to one writer alone - as if Romanides were the only Orthodox theologian who commented on Augustine. The exclusion of the other two Orthodox theologians is all the more to be deplored because they are explicitly commenting on the attitude of Romanides to Augustine!

Related to that problem is that of the same editor's insistence on heading the section as "Orthodox theologian comments on Augustine in relation to Hesychasm". In the whole of the section, even as reduced, there is just one bare mention of hesychasm: the relatively short phrase, "Romanides also says that some of Augustine's teachings were actually condemned as those of Barlaam the Calabrian at the Hesychast or Fifth Council of Constantinople 1351". No more. The rest of the section says nothing of hesychasm. Esoglou (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

LM has now in great part legitimized his choice of title, by removing yet more content from the section, so that it can very well be titleed "One Eastern Orthodox theologian's comments on August in relation to Hesychasm". 16:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou continues to revert and rewrite without actually being informed in his behavior. As I added to the article Romanides is not alone in this position. And Esoglou made the personal and uninformed assumption that Romanides was. Esoglou then edit warred and revert and reworded without actually trying to confirm that the idea that Augustine's theology was condemned at the Hesychast councils (indirectly) was one held by more Orthodox theologians than Romanides. The article looks like it is uninformed and is a personal article for Esoglou to further Esoglou's ecumenist position and opinion. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

When I pointed out that you had reduced the section to two references to a single theologian, what other one was lurking there unperceived? Esoglou (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Still don't know whom Saint Gennadius Scholarius is? [36] LoveMonkey (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Not there then. Esoglou (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Still ignoring. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

How trying to post the main theological difference between the churches is being obfuscated

I have posted under the heading 'Eastern Orthodox theologians comments on Augustine in relation to Hesychasm how in summary of the article EMPIRICAL THEOLOGY VERSUS SPECULATIVE THEOLOGY by John Romanides that the Eastern Orthodox hold that the difference between the Eastern Orthodox and Western Christianity is the practice of Hesychasm that leads to theoria. As the Roman Catholic church would rather use philosophy to attempt to obtain theoria (which is why the Eastern Orthodox keep saying the Roman Catholic church is repackaging Pagan philosophy Aristotlism and Platonism and Neoplatonism and calling it Christianity). LoveMonkey (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Saying that "God loves with the same love, both the saint and the devil. To teach otherwise, as Augustine and the Franks did, would be adequate proof that they did not have the slightest idea of what glorification was" means that "the difference between the Eastern Orthodox and Western Christianity is the practice of Hesychasm that leads to theoria" is quite a leap. Esoglou (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Excuses. You are attacking Romanides and just showed that you are not reading the sources. You are completely in the dark on what the article in summary is saying aren't you Esoglou. You just showed that you have not even taken the time to read what you are attacking and distorting. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Because "the difference between the Eastern Orthodox and Western Christianity is the practice of Hesychasm that leads to theoria" is exactly what Romanides proposed as the difference between the Eastern Orthodox and West to the World Council of Churches. AND YOU ESOGLOU SHOULD KNOW THIS POSITION BEFORE EVEN ATTEMPTING TO EDIT THIS ARTICLE. Which means you are motivated by your own ignorance of the subject you are warring over and what is really the issues as the Orthodox Church has actually presented them. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Please quote where he says what you attribute to him. Esoglou (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

So what are you saying Romanides means by the entire article heading

EMPIRICAL THEOLOGY VERSUS SPECULATIVE THEOLOGY

Romanides' article is in ENGLISH is it not ESOGLOU.

Here is the article section. [37] Please read it before you again speak for it and say it does not say what it says. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

He said many things, but the general drift could be summarized, in the words of Demacopoulos and Papanicolaou, as "a construction of a particular set of categories, namely 'the West' and 'the East', and an understanding of these categories in terms of diametrical opposition. Anything falling on one side of the divide was judged as opposed to the other". There is only one mention of hesychasm (or, to be more exact, "hesychasts") and that mention does not say that "the difference between the Eastern Orthodox and Western Christianity is the practice of Hesychasm that leads to theoria". Esoglou (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Esoglou Wrote

"but the general drift could be summarized, in the words of Demacopoulos and Papanicolaou, as "a construction of a particular set of categories, namely 'the West' and 'the East', and an understanding of these categories in terms of diametrical opposition."

---

LoveMonkey response

WRONG. Romanides states explicitly

"European and American histories treat the alienation between East and West as though it were inevitable, because of an alleged separation of the Roman Empire itself into East and West, because of alleged linguistic and cultural differences, and because of an alleged difference between the legal West and the speculative East.[ 1 ] Evidence strongly suggests that such attempts to explain the separation between East and West are conditioned by prejudices inherited from the cultural tradition of the Franks, and from the he centuries-old propaganda of the Frankish Papacy.

The evidence points clearly to the national, cultural, and even linguistic unity between East and West Romans (which at times almost brought Francia to her knees), and which survived to the time when the Roman popes were replaced by Franks."

Romanides above is saying that East and West is a false dichotomy created by the Franco-Germans. There where the Romans and then the Franco Germans. The Franco Germans defeated the Roman Empire in the West took it over and then divided it into it's false dichotomy of East and West.

---

Esoglou Wrote
There is only one mention of hesychasm (or, to be more exact, "hesychasts") and that mention does not say that "the difference between the Eastern Orthodox and Western Christianity is the practice of Hesychasm that leads to theoria".

---

LoveMonkey's response
Why is it that Esoglou seeks to spread ignorance? By the above statement Esoglou is saying that hesychasm in the article as treated by Romanides is divorced from the theosis or glorification. Romanides does not and is not saying or doing that. Romanides does not say that if a person says they where struck that this is a lie because they where kicked with a foot and not slapped by a hand. Romanides very clearly states that there is no divorcing his works from one another any more then it is to divorce the stages of theosis or glorifcation from the practice of hesychasm. YOU ESOGLOU ARE DISTORTING ROMANIDES. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

So Romanides does maintain the idea of a dichotomy between West (the evil "Franks" and "Franco-Germans", who took over the papacy) and East (the intellectually and spiritually far superior "East and West Romans"). As for hesychasm, please drop your interpretative synthesis of Romanides, just quote where he says what you attribute to him. Esoglou (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Only in the way you said it in your own mind. More fallacious nonsense now Esoglou is using Appeal to ridicule as if this will change that Orthodox theologians have said what they said and Esoglou doesn't even understand some of the basic and general tenets or meanings to the words and terms these theologians are using. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Enough said on this. Indeed much more than enough. Esoglou (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What does it mean to use created symbols of metaphysics to attain theoria and by proxy theosis?

What does this passage from Romanides and Papademetriou means?

"The Augustinian view of revelation by created symbols and illumined vision is rejected. For Augustine, the vision of God is an intellectual experience. This is not acceptable to Palamas. The Palamite emphasis was that creatures, including humans and angles, cannot know or comprehend God's essence." LoveMonkey (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No answer. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are certain editors edit warring on this article when they don't even understand what is actually being said? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Exclusion of opinion expressed by Saint John Chrysostom

Would LoveMonkey please explain on what grounds he thinks the opinion expressed Saint John Chrysostom on the fire and torments of hell cannot be included in the article under Eastern Orthodox views on hell? Esoglou (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Here's just a few.

• 1. Where does Chrysostom say anything about the Roman Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences in the passage you posted?
• 2. Where does Chrysostom say anything about Hell being separation from God?
• 3. Where does Chrysostom say anything in the passage about Hell as being with God?
• 4. Where does Chrysostom say anything in the passage about the Roman Catholic church?
• 5. Where does Chrysostom say anything in the passage about the Eastern Orthodox church?
• 6. Where does Chrysostom say anything in the passage about the East-West schism? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The section is on EO views on hell, which are not limited to "presence of God" and "separation from God", but obviously include also Chrysostom's picture. If you think EO view on hell are unrelated to RC-EO theological differences, do please remove the whole section. Esoglou (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have removed what I thought was appropriate. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"What you thought ..."! Now what about trying to give an objective reason for excluding John Chrysostom from the section giving EO views on hell? Esoglou (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's a list of objective reasons for excluding John Chrysostom from the section giving EO views on hell

• 1. Where does Chrysostom say anything about the Roman Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences in the passage you posted?
• 2. Where does Chrysostom say anything about Hell being separation from God?
• 3. Where does Chrysostom say anything in the passage about Hell as being with God?
• 4. Where does Chrysostom say anything in the passage about the Roman Catholic church?
• 5. Where does Chrysostom say anything in the passage about the Eastern Orthodox church?
• 6. Where does Chrysostom say anything in the passage about the East-West schism? 20:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

In spite of how you act, I will not call you a troll.

So you have the authority to exclude from the article quotations from everyone who lived before the East-West Schism? Esoglou (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are you saying and doing this? What is the point in what you just posted? More ignoring. Stop wasting peoples time. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

According to most of your six evasive questions, nobody can be quoted unless that person is talking about a distinction that didn't exist in the time of John Chrysostom, long before the RCC-EOC distinction and schism. So you want to exclude from this article all quotations from him and others like him! Are you serious?

Do you really, seriously, claim that the teaching of Saint John Chrysostom is of no weight in discerning Eastern Orthodox doctrine? Esoglou (talk) 06:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed it again as anyone can quote a pre-schism saint. According to Esoglou the article should be either poison the well or obfuscate. Neither of which is acceptable. The passage has nothing to do with the differences between the two communities and is undue weight and does not contribute to clarifying anything in the article. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Shall we go through the article and remove all pre-1054 saints? Including Saint Photius the Great? I was going to start, but I find they are too many. Esoglou (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You should leave them out when what they say give not clarity to the topic that you are attempting to add them too. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

John Chrysostom gives at least as much clarity to the topic of Eastern Orthodox pictures of hell as the pre-1054 writers that you have inserted give to the topics to which you have added them. Should we omit them? Esoglou (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

John Chrysostom says nothing of the schism, nothing of the changes or innovations made to various theological tenets made by the Roman Catholic church, John Chrysostom wasn't even cannonical with the Roman Catholic church until after he died. Roman Catholic changes or innovation made that after one dies they go to a place called hell. There is no word hell in the Greek bible. The place called Hades is where EVERYBODY GOES until the end of time. Some there get the foretaste of eternal damnation as God has not come into the world or brought to an end time itself and the existence of time, limitation, finiteness. This is the bosom of Abraham. Same place as a foretaste of eternity -for everybody- some burn others, live in joy. John Chrysostom speaks to none of this. This is just more padding of the article with un-needed unnecessary information that does not give the reader clarity on what is at issue here in the subject of this article. Esoglou knows this and Esoglou is just doing this to wiki hound as John Chrysostom is not in any of the dialog by the Eastern Orthodox theologians pointing out the issue (as sources provided by me) and Esoglou has of yet to show where Roman Catholic theologians addressing this issue with the Eastern Orthodox mention John Chrysostom either. Esoglou of Esoglou's own opinion and initiative has added this distraction to the article. Unless Esoglou is WP:sandbagging, which means Esoglou needs to add the evidence of how John Chrysostom is critical or stop the arguing and move on. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

John Chysostom of course says nothing about the schism: there was no schism to talk about. But he did say that those who are unfaithful undergo unquenchable fire, torments and torrents of punishment. He wasn't speaking of a foretaste of eternity for everybody but of eternity for some. He does represent an Eastern Orthodox view of hell. Esoglou (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou again is interpreting. This time Esoglou again admits that the source does not do what Esoglou is using the source to do but then gives the source some none essential justification and then argues over the source. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am only quoting. You are interpreting. Esoglou (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Now Esoglou is interpreting me too. Esoglou is telling me what I am saying and that I don't understand myself. Esoglou should keep this practice on himself and not push it on other people. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are so disturbed at my calling your opinion that the Roman Catholic Church made innovations about hell after the death of John Chrysostom a personal interpretation, I withdraw it. Let us leave that aside. You have cited other pre-schism writers: may I just quote pre-schism John Chrysostom on hell, without giving any interpretation of his words? After all, the section is about Eastern Orthodox views on hell, not on Roman Catholic views. Esoglou (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

How many volumes of data here on wikipedia does it take for you Esoglou to finally see that you are acting inappropriately. Look at the time it took for me to get this removed from the article. And this paragraph you added was nothing at all about theological difference that the article is supposed to be about. Esoglou did this for no other purpose then to frustrate and this took a bunch of edit warring and also causes people to not want to have to deal with this in order to add something sourced to the article. Look at the response Esoglou is still arguing that a remark that how no significance on the actual issues addressed in the article should be added. Esoglou does this after saying the passage with be dropped. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well then, if it is of so little significance, may I quote Chrysostom? Esoglou (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Fallacious arguments are not valid justifications for additions, so the answer is no, I still oppose its addition into the article. I show that the justification Esoglou uses to attempt to add Chrysostom to the article is a logical fallacy. Esoglou responds with the above. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Then you must agree to removal of all those pre-schism writers mentioned in the second paragraph of the "Accusations of Modalism in the Western Trinitarian theology" section. They too say nothing about the schism. They too say nothing about differences between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. They too say nothing of "the changes or innovations made to various theological tenets made by the Roman Catholic church". They too weren't even "cannonical" with the Roman Catholic Church until after they died ... Esoglou (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Then I will put the reference to Chrysostom back in and, if it is removed, we will remove also the references under "Accusations of Modalism ..." Esoglou (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Refusal to justify off-topic insertion

An editor insists on removing requests to justify his insertion into a section dealing (at his own insistence) exclusively with "Eastern Orthodox theologians comments on Augustine in relation to Hesychasm" of a quotation that seems to say nothing of hesychasm. Instead of explaining its supposed relevance, he removes the tag indicating the request. Esoglou (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is Esoglou edit warring. Notice how Esoglou wants this article on Wikipedia to be a copy and paste as Esoglou will and continues to take both sides whenever there is material that says things that Esoglou doesn't like. So it is OK for Esoglou to take what Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev says as people in Hell being outside of the opportunity to prove themselves by love in this temporal life (this is in the context of Alfeyev's statement which is a response to the teaching of hell in Dostoevsky). To mean that Alfeyev is teaching that Hell is separation from God. Even though Alfeyev never says such a thing and even in the same article Alfeyev condemns the Roman Catholic teaching of hell as the Pedogory of Fear. It's OK for Esoglou to do original research and not actual give a source Roman Catholic response from ANY Roman Catholic source. However if another Editor comes in and takes a VERY VERY large amount of data and attempts to compress it into a paragraph of to then Esoglou goes right to edit warring and does not even read what he is attacking and when called wrong on it obfuscates and posts fallacious arguments (like appeal to emotions, Appeal to ridicule) and this one above which is Argument from ignorance. Esoglou is edit warring plan and simple. Esoglou has wiki hounded me on at least three other articles (theosis, East-West schism and filioque). LoveMonkey (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Now, after letting off steam about several other things, don't you think it is time for you to indicate in what way Gennadius is commenting on Augustine in relation to Hesychasm? Esoglou (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Now that Esoglou has outright refused to acknowledge the validity of what I just posted and wants instead to distract from it and not address it. Look at it in the article I sourced the quote from [38] how is it that the article follows the section Hesychasm and Augustine with quote? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Now that's a much better attempt to address the topic of this section. I have looked again at the cited source, but isn't it in the context of discussion of the Filioque that the phrase is quoted, not in the context of hesychasm? Esoglou (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Still more ignoring the obvious from Esoglou. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is obvious that in the whole of the section devoted to Scholarios in Papademetriou's article, the section headed "Saint Gennadios Scholarios", from which the quotation is taken, hesychasm isn't mentioned even once. But I don't think it is I who am ignoring that obvious fact. Esoglou (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

How can the article have the title Hesychasm and Augustine and Esoglou make the statement they just made? It would be better for Esoglou to go somewhere else and become informed and then come back here. As Esoglou knows nothing of Scholarios. Esoglou does not see the long long war between the pagans and the Orthodox, because Esoglou is ignorant of the Orthodox church's past and yet Esoglou makes disruption here on wikipedia out of this ignorance. [39] LoveMonkey (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I regret that I must contradict you flatly. There is no way out of doing so. Papademetriou's article does not have the title "Hesychasm and Augustine". The title is "Saint Augustine in the Greek Orthodox Tradition". A section within it is headed "Hesychasm and Augustine", and another is headed "Saint Gennadios Scholarios". The quotation that you are insisting on inserting in a section of the Wikipedia article that you have equally insisted be titled "Eastern Orthodox theologians comments on Augustine in relation to Hesychasm" is not taken from the "Hesychasm and Augustine" section, but from the "Saint Gennadios Scholarios" section. Esoglou (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Never said it was. But here is what Esoglou is doing wrong with his ignorance of this particular situation. You see Gennadios Scholarios was the Photius the Palamas and the John Romanides of his day in his anti-ecumentist conduct. Esoglou does not know that the anti-ecumentist have used Scholarios and his general overview of Hesychasm to make their arguments.

---

Saint Augustine in the Greek Orthodox Tradition

Rev. Dr. George C. Papademetriou

Hesychasm and Augustine

Augustine himself had not been personally attacked by the Hesychasts of the fourteenth century but Augustinian theology was condemned in the person of Barlaam, who caused the controversy. This resulted in the ultimate condemnation of western Augustinianism as presented to the East by the Calabrian monk, Barlaam, in the Councils of the fourteenth century.

Palamas, the Orthodox protagonist, wrote numerous treatises against the filioque and the basic theological philosophical presuppositions of Latin theology. Saint Gregory Palamas followed the Cappadocian theological presuppositions and maintained that God's essence is totally transcendent and supported the evidence of personal participation in the uncreated energies. That is, he opposed the identity of the essence with the attributes in God. It was the conflict of the theology of revelation based on Augustine, which came from the West through Barlaam, that was reacted against. Revelation for Palamas is directly experienced in the divine energies and is opposed to the conceptualization of revelation. The Augustinian view of revelation by created symbols and illumined vision is rejected. For Augustine, the vision of God is an intellectual experience. This is not acceptable to Palamas. The Palamite emphasis was that creatures, including humans and angles, cannot know or comprehend God's essence.[11]

In the person of Barlaam, the East rejected Augustinian theology. The East perceived that Augustine accepts the neo-Platonic presupposition that the saint is able to have vision of the divine essence as the archetype of all beings. Barlaam contended under the influence of neo-Platonism that through ekstasis, the reason going out of the body when it functions in a pure way, one has a vision of the divine archetype. Palamas calls this the Greek pagan error and maintained that man attains theosis through participation in the divine energies.[12]

Later, for political reasons, the Byzantine emperors sought union with Rome to save the empire. The Emperor, the Patriarch and a delegation came to Ferrara in 1438 to participate at a council with the pope and bring about union between the Greeks and the Latins.

In the debate between the Greeks and the Latins, numerous times the authority of Augustine came up. The adamant Greek Orthodox theologian, Mark Eugenikos, used the work of Augustine to support his views. In regard to the errors of Augustine, he tried to place him in the best possible light, following the example of Saint Photios. He makes reference to Saint Gregory of Nyssa who agreed with the Origenist doctrines. He says "it would be better to give them over to silence, and not at all compel us, for the sake of our own defence, to bring them out into the open."[13]

Saint Gennadios Scholarios

Also attending the Council at Ferrara-Florence was a theologian of great stature, Gennadios Scholarios. He knew Latin and Latin theology. He had translated several treatises of Thomas Aquinas into Greek for the benefit of his compatriots. He spent a great deal of time studying and writing on Augustine in the debate on the filioque.[40] LoveMonkey (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC),

How is it that you didn't notice the obvious fact that the part you have copied is preceded by two introductory paragraphs followed by a section of fourteen paragraphs under the heading "Saint Photios"? The section "Hesychasm and Augustine" has only five paragraphs! And how is it that you didn't notice that the section headed "Saint Gennadios Scholarios" didn't stop at just one paragraph, but continued for another seventeen paragraphs, from one of which (not copied by you here) comes the phrase that you insist on putting into the Wikipedia article? And how did you not notice that that "Saint Gennadios Scholarios" section is followed by two more sections, one headed "Modern Period" and of fifteen paragraphs, and the other headed "Conclusion" and of four paragraphs. Since I assume good faith, I am very puzzled at your failure to notice the obvious. Esoglou (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Again Esoglou should puzzle himself. As you are ignoring the tradition that Scholarios represents. And pointing out meaningless conjecture. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I am ignoring nothing. In particular I am not ignoring the curious omission of sixteen paragraphs between the title of the article and the name of the author, which you copied faithfully, so as to jump suddenly to the section headed "Hesychasm and Augustine". I am making no conjecture about why you did it. I quite fail to come up with any. Would you explain it? Esoglou (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright then as a matter of compromise and so I don't have to pull Gennadios Scholarios polemics into the article and the discussion (making the article bigger by doing so). If the comment bothers you that much then move it to the Augustinian section further do in the article. It's still sourced and it is validly sourced and Esoglou is not justified to tag it as failing verification. That is misleading. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You had better do the moving yourself. I don't know where would be a good place to insert it. But I think we agree that where it is at present is not appropriate. Esoglou (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Denis Petau

Editor Esoglou has edit warred in the Hesychasm section of this article over the Hesychasm being at the heart of the conflict between East (Byzantine theology-heschasm) and Western Scholatics (Roman Catholicism)- Denis Petau. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Opposing views of Hell

The article currently states "An opposing view on the question of hell and separation from God is presented by several Eastern Orthodox sources...". There are indeed sources which use the expression "separation from God" when talking about hell, however, I have not seen any sources to claim that these theologians disagree (or oppose) that sinners will have to feel God's everlasting energies as everlasting Fire, and making this an opposing view (in case, there actually are such sources already cited, I'm sorry for my mistake). As already, discussed earlier, Paul Evdokimov also claims "The great spiritual masters insist on this aspect of judgment more as a revelation of the light of God's love, not at all the menace of punishment...He is not the fearful Judge but he is Love and the very love which subjectively becomes suffering among the outcasts and joy among the blessed. Sinners in hell are not deprived of divine love", the Reverend Theodore Stylianopoulos is also stating that "Nevertheless, those who deliberately refuse to believe in God, refuse to obey Him, and refuse follow His ways of light and love, will experience the same divine light and love as “hell” because they are unable to share in that divine light and love, and will know this fact as immense deprivation, a psychic anguish greater than any material punishment, the “scourge of love” as St. Isaac put it", and Kallistos Ware has also stated "God is also there with them (in hell). It is written in the Psalms," "If I go down to hell, thou art there also" (139:7); and St Isaac the Syrian says, "It is wrong to imagine that sinners in hell are cut off from the love of God. Divine love is everywhere, and rejects no one..." (it should also be noted that Kallistos Ware, and also the Catechism of Philaret, use the word "hell" when referring to the temporary "Hades"/"Sheol", and it might not be very accurate to cite them in a section called "Hell – the concept of eternal punishment"). As far as I see, even if these theologians speak about a separation from God, they do not intend to oppose the view that sinners will also have to feel God's Fire(/Energies) in Hell, they actually seem to support this view. (And when they speak about "separation from God", they probably refer to the sinners' attitude of not loving God and being against Him, but not that they will remain separated in Hell from God's Fire (even if in this world they can remain blind to God's Energies), and anyway, if the Fire in Hell is everlasting, then it must be an everlasting energy of God, because only God is everlasting, and there cannot be another Eternal source.) Cody7777777 (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That is precisely what "separation from God" means. It doesn't mean being in a different place from God, and this should, no doubt, be made more explicit in the article. (I will attend to this now.) Separation from God is a matter, not of place or space, but of attitude. A matter of human attitude, not of God's. In spite of the efforts made on this page to do so, it cannot really be denied that the Eastern Orthodox sources cited do speak of separation from God as hell. What they say about that separation is not opposed to the idea that those in hell are tormented precisely by their inability to return God's love: the sources themselves say so either explicitly or implicitly, and even Augustine taught the same. Physical nearness or distance has nothing to do with God's love and its effect, whether that effect is expressed in terms of fire or light/darkness or some other image. Esoglou (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

WOW talk about allot of original research. Esoglou speaking for the Roman Catholic church and even other theologians can't get one to say (Roman Catholic theologian that is), to confirm the statement Esoglou just posted.

"That is precisely what "separation from God" means. It doesn't mean being in a different place from God, and this should, no doubt, be made more explicit in the article. (I will attend to this now.)"

Esoglou in "attending to this now" did no such of thing. As where is the Roman Catholic teaching (sourced) that separation from God is not really "separation from God" but people should accept that it is, isn't? I'll cut to the chase -NO WHERE is there such a Roman Catholic teaching. Could Esoglou confuse the whole thing anymore? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps only one person in the whole world could have failed to see that it was Eastern Orthodox views that Cody and I were discussing. Esoglou (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Deductive fallacy. Only Esoglou would ignore Esoglou's past performance and conduct and then say that "other" editors missed Esoglou's patterns of behavior. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)