Infinite and the finite

A conversation between two about a finite being understanding an infinite being


A: It is absolutely absurd for anyone to hold any sort of belief in any God, especially the Judeo-Christian version.

B: Why? What is so absurd about it?

A: The concept of God is so far fetched. How can a finite being even begin to understand an infinite being? It is impossible, so to even assert you know him or believe him is absurd, it is an impossibility.

B: You are a mathematician correct?

A: Yes.

B: So do me a favor, count to the number one for me.

A: Is this some kind of joke? One!

B: No no, I mean count all the numbers.

A: I am not quite understanding what you are asking of me.

B: Between zero and one there exist numbers right?

A: Yes.

B: About how many numbers exist between zero and one?

A: Its impossible to say, probably an endless amount of numbers.

B: An infinite amount of numbers would you say?

A: Yea that would be fair.

B: So why don't you count them when counting to one?

A: Because you would never get to one.

B: So does the number one even exist?

A: Well yes of course, you kind of have to set aside the absurdity of infinity in order to get past all of that.

B: But how can you grasp counting to any number if there exists an infinite amount of numbers in between? It may be absurd to count them but it certainly is also absurd to skip them.

A: What is your point?

B: My point is that despite the absurdity of the infinite amount of numbers between zero and one, you still can grasp and believe in the number one. Likewise, with God I realize that he is infinite and I am merely a finite being but I still am able to know Him and believe in Him, despite the absurdity of the infinite.

A: You believe because it is absurd?

B: I believe it despite the absurdity.

The Council of Chalcedon from an Oriental Perspective

I am by no means a great theologian, or well schooled in Christology. I am however very history minded and therefore this will be from a historical point of view. One thing that really rubs me the wrong way is when in discussion with an Eastern Orthodox Christian about this schism, the EO tends to tell the OO what they believe according to their understanding and then they attack it. This of course is not every EO that I have encountered but quite a number of them do this. Its perplexing to me that someone would not first ask the other what it is they believe, what is their perspective, and how they understand what took place.

The EO tend to point to Dioscorus as a heretic, adhering to a monophysite Christology simply because Dioscorus was trying to rehabilitate Eutyches who was in error. The fact is that even at the council Dioscorus was not condemned for heresy, there is no evidence for this whatsoever. This idea comes from later interpretation of Dioscorous' actions and not any decision by the council of Chalcedon. Dioscorus later did condemn Eutyches who persisted in his error of a monophysite Christology, which apparently is overlooked. But what about the Oriental Orthodox perspective which is almost entirely ignored by the Eastern Orthodox?

From our perspective we were very suspicious of Leo. Why? Well, like Dioscorus making the Eastern suspicious by supporting, and attempting to rehabilitate Eutyches, Leo supported Theodoret, a known Nestorian heretic. When Dioscoros read Leo's Tome he most likely thought it was suspicious in its wording, which is probably why he refused to read it. Not only that, Nestorious himself said that Leos Tome was a "vindication of the truth." So we had enough reason to be suspicious of Leo and his intentions to reject what was taking place at Chalcedon and the Antiochene formula. Of course in hindsight we know that Leo was not a heretic and that while he was friends with Theodoret he was attempting, like Dioscorus, to rehabilitate Theodoret, even rebuking his Nestorian Christology in letters to him.

You will find most, if not all, Oriental Orthodox accept both EO and OO formulas, namely because St Cyril himself affirmed that both formulas are Orthodox, even though he preferred the OO formula to the EO formula. The formula itself is pretty much a non-issue yet I find so many EO are obsessively focused on this, again telling us what it is we believe and then attacking it. Without ever actually asking what we believe, or if we even accept both formulas. We are not monophysite, never have been and never will be. We have adhered to St Cyrils formula of "One nature united out of two" which was accepted at the 3rd council. How exactly could that be Orthodox in one council and then heretical in the following council?

At any rate, we accept both formulas.

The End of Coptic Orthodoxy

                  It is with great sadness that I write this as I have a deep love for the Coptic Orthodox Church. However, the truth is the truth and it must be said as what benefit is the truth if it remain hidden. As many of you know I am a covert to the faith of about 8 years. Recently there has been some turmoil within our diocese, which consists of only one church. Through this I have gotten a glimpse of the state of the church and in this it became clear to me why the church is struggling, why it is bleeding youth, and why it has difficulty evangelizing without compromising its theology and practice. If the church continues the path it is on, it will not be recognizable 50 years from now. It may have a few remnants of Orthodoxy but for the most part people of today will not be able to know a Coptic Orthodox Church from a western protestant church.

               We see many churches employing western methods and westernized protestant songs into their service. We see many preachers now taking the protestant style sermon that has a lot of emotion but little depth. We see priests abusing their position and other clergy protecting them as opposed to disciplining or outright defrocking them. We have a leadership that is detached from the people, that see themselves as lording over the people rather than serving them. Coming to a clergymans rescue despite the fact that he has brutalized congregation after congregation. We see these things happening and the leadership is unable or unwilling to do anything about it. The protestantization of the church is a huge issue, one that is being all but ignored by the leadership of the church. By simply singing these protestant songs we are equating them to Orthodoxy, by doing that we are validating the source. Is protestantism equal to Orthodoxy? Hardly. We have to remember that this is a different religion entirely and it teaches against everything we deem necessary for salvation. I am sorry to be so brutally honest but if you deny the body and blood of Christ then you are denying Him. How can you deny Him and yet consider yourself to be Christian? But, if we tell our youth, and the rest of the people that are protestantizing, that this is acceptable then what is stopping them from leaving? If protestantism is truly the same then why fast 210 days out of the year when you can fast 0 days and get the same result? This is the danger that we are facing the the leadership is too weak and ineffectual to do anything about it.

               The other problem is the backward minded clergy. Now granted there are numerous good clergy who do a fantastic job but there are also numerous backward minded priests who seem more concerned with their own authority than they do serving the people in their congregation. This leads to friction and strife amongst the people as the priest acts as a dictator rather than a shepherd and beats his sheep into compliance rather than love them and guide them with a steady hand. These priests seem only to care about their authority and abuse the priesthood for their own personal gain. I honestly cannot decide if some of these clergy are dictators or tyrants, either way its not good. The other issue with clergy, which is directly related to their tyrannical mindset is the fact that they are unbelievably difficult to get a hold of. One bishop in particular I called, emailed, and texted over 300 times. Not once was an email, text, or phone call returned. In fact I had to drive over four hours to ambush him at a monastery just to talk to him about the issues in our diocese. The evidence was presented to him and he assured us that he would take care of the situation, only to completely reverse his decision the very next day. This seems common place amongst Coptic Clergy, tell somebody one thing and then do another. I have seen this over and over as if its a cultural tradition to lie to someones face.


             Unless the leadership grows a spine and takes action the Coptic Orthodox Church is utterly doomed. Its slow progression towards oblivion seems inevitable, barring another miracle in the form of a saint the likes of St Pope Kyrillos 6th. Unfortunately I do not see this happening and the churches decline into oblivion inevitable. The leadership even acknowledges there is a problem, putting out a survey asking the entire church why people are leaving the church. It is such a big issue that the leadership actually did something, so it must be big if they actually acted. God willing the church will see the light and come out of the ignorance imprisoning it.

Amen.