Lest anyone think that I am one of those militant atheists who take great pleasure in demeaning the god-based faith of others, think again. For many years I was a Professor of Philosophy (Patristics) at an Orthodox Theological Seminary, and most of my published work has been studies of the ancient Church Fathers. My claim to "fame," in fact, is Origen of Alexandria (http://www.iep.utm.edu/origen-of-alexandria/) among numerous other, more personally interpretive writings. That being said, I'd like to follow up my last brief post with some positive comments on Christianity. The first includes the concept of the person or hupostasis in Greek. St. Gregory of Nyssa tells it better than I am able. Here he is:
For as in our own life artificers fashion a tool in the way suitable to its use, so the best Artificer made our nature as it were a formation fit for the exercise of royalty, preparing it at once by superior advantages of soul, and by the very form of the body, to be such as to be adapted for royalty: for the soul immediately shows its royal and exalted character, far removed as it is from the lowliness of private station, in that it owns no lord, and is self-governed, swayed autocratically by its own will; for to whom else does this belong than to a king? And further, besides these facts, the fact that it is the image of that Nature which rules over all means nothing else than this, that our nature was created to be royal from the first. For as, in men's ordinary use, those who make images of princes both mould the figure of their form, and represent along with this the royal rank by the vesture of purple, and even the likeness is commonly spoken of as a king, so the human nature also, as it was made to rule the rest, was, by its likeness to the King of all, made as it were a living image, partaking with the archetype both in rank and in name, not vested in purple, nor giving indication of its rank by sceptre and diadem (for the archetype itself is not arrayed with these), but instead of the purple robe, clothed in virtue, which is in truth the most royal of all raiment, and in place of the sceptre, leaning on the bliss of immortality, and instead of the royal diadem, decked with the crown of righteousness; so that it is shown to be perfectly like to the beauty of its archetype in all that belongs to the dignity of royalty. (On the Creation of Man IV.1)
Pardon this rather lengthy quote, but it suffices to show one of the great forward strides made by Christianity in the history of humanistic thought: namely, the autonomy and unrecallable dignity of the human person; a notion entirely absent from pagan Greco-Roman thought. I recall, years ago, when I began writing my doctoral dissertation (https://books.google.com/books/about/Origen_of_Alexandria_and_St_Maximus_the.html?id=MmMV9P3jMn0C&hl=en) that my labelling of Origen as a "Christian humanist" drew much fire, at the various conferences at which I presented my early chapters. To this day, I believe that one can be a "sky godder" and a humanist at the same time -- only it takes a hell of a lot more work than just admitting that there is no Sky King and getting on with the business of living.
Another reason to admire the early Fathers was their facility at debate: that powerful exercise of our thought that places war and torture in the background, and mutual respect in the foreground. Justin Martyr was a fine debater -- yes, he resorted to ad hominem, but that was the style of the age -- and took upon himself the herculean task of learning about his opponents' positions before attacking them. How often do we see that today? Here is Justin, in one of his finest moments:
In my helpless condition [self-doubt about god and the cosmos] it occurred to me to have a meeting with the Platonists, for their fame was great. I thereupon spent as much of my time as possible with one who had lately settled in our city,--a sagacious man, holding a high position among the Platonists,--and I progressed, and made the greatest improvements daily. And the perception of immaterial things quite overpowered me, and the contemplation of ideas furnished my mind with wings, so that in a little while I supposed that I had become wise; and such was my stupidity, I expected forthwith to look upon God, for this is the end of Plato's philosophy.(Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 2)
How many Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses or Muslims or even Hindus do we know today who spend time studying with scholars of opposing -- or at least divergent -- beliefs? Years ago, I met a Turkish Muslim at a conference at a Greek Orthodox Seminary who was there to learn what not to believe. There was no debating with this kind and quiet fellow: he would smile, nod, and say, "very interesting." I highly doubt that Justin's time spent with the unnamed Platonist was quite as mild.
And finally this, from the admittedly obscure Anastasius of Sinai: "theosis [i.e., the deification or becoming god-like of the person] is the ascension toward what is better – it is neither a diminution nor an alteration of nature. In other words, by theosis man will not cease being man; he will simply become perfect man" (quoted in Moore [2009], 'The Christian Neoplatonism of St. Maximus the Confessor': http://www.quodlibet.net/articles/moore-maximus.shtml [note 36]). Contrast this with the preachings of so many mainstream and even out-of-the-way "bible" churches that tell us that a complete absorption into the godhead is our ultimate fate. I mean, by that, spending a eternity praising a creator who has allowed so much of hell to appear in his Eden.
