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.