The Source of the Trinity

[Constantine the Sinner]

it's all coming together now. most Christians seem to believe that this universe is the fundamental reality rather than God. that is why they think how they think.

Christianity is not about the material world being an illusion, nor is it pantheistic: it's panentheistic.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

you don't understand what freedom is

It the choice whether to sin or not.

 

[Noxot]

No I'm not, the criterion comes from Holy Tradition and Scripture. I just subscribe to Christ, and accept his teachings in their fullest, whatever they are. I don't make a buffet out of them and only accept the ones I like. If you accept Christ, you can't pick and choose his teachings.

said every christian ever.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

said every christian ever.

Christ gave the Spirit of Truth to his Church, and promised the Gates of Hades would not prevail over his Church. As long as I am a part of the Church he founded, what other Christians outside of it say is not relevant to me.

 

[Noxot]

Christianity is not about the material world being an illusion, nor is it pantheistic: it's panentheistic.

who said it was an illusion? are we going to talk about common misconceptions occurring in other religions now? everyone meets traditions with what they are and therefore it is in a sense a unique thing to each.

 

[Noxot]

Christ gave the Spirit of Truth to his Church, and promised the Gates of Hades would not prevail over his Church. As long as I am a part of the Church he founded, what other Christians outside of it say is not relevant to me.

don't worry as long as you are pure you will be pure

 

[Noxot]

I think that some people forget what makes the church up. they might want to go and read the shepherd of hermas again.

how strange to be cut off a living tree and it not be lessened and yet we live.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

I get my information from Christ in Eastern Christian Thought, which cites De Principiis as the main source of Origen's heretical stances. Here are some quotes from De Principiis:

"If it is true that this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and this mortal put on immortality, and that death is swallowed up at the end; this shows that nothing else than a material nature is to be destroyed, on which death could operate, while the mental acumen of those who are in the body seems to be blunted by the nature of corporeal matter. If, however, they are out of the body, then they will altogether escape the annoyance arising from a disturbance of that kind. But as they will not be able immediately to escape all bodily clothing, they are just to be considered as inhabiting more refined and purer bodies, which possess the property of being no longer overcome by death, or of being wounded by its sting; so that at last, by the gradual disappearance of the material nature, death is both swallowed up, and even at the end exterminated, and all its sting completely blunted by the divine grace which the soul has been rendered capable of receiving, and has thus deserved to obtain incorruptibility and immortality."

"Whence we are of opinion that, seeing the soul, as we have frequently said, is immortal and eternal, it is possible that, in the many and endless periods of duration in the immeasurable and different worlds, it may descend from the highest good to the lowest evil, or be restored from the lowest evil to the highest good."

I am not denying Origen taught this, but what you quote is not Gnostic; it is not Orthodox, but it does not deny a material resurrection. It errs merely in suggesting this might be a multi-phasic process.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

http://orthodoxbiblestudy.info/the-church-fathers-part-3/

Dr. Constantinou is well respected, but with all due respect, she is not an internationally reknowned scholar such as Fr. John Behr, the dean of St. Vladimir's Seminary, who obtained his doctorate under Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, the Metropokitan of Diokleia, auxillary bishop in the Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain, and Professor Emeritus of Eastern Christian Studies at Oxford.

 

[Blade]

1st I have to say I am so humbled at those that follow Christ and ONLY believe. Meaning all they really know of Him is by the word of God "bible". He is SO REAL! So to think any MAN will every grasp a GOD that is all powerful so for so on.. lol is foolish. I can only go by what I know and read and have heard.

I have received POWER after the sweet sweet Holy Spirit came on me. I asked and my Father gave Him to me as it is written. What happen to those in the bible is exactly what happen to me. And it is SO true HE never speaks of Him self and ask your self WHO and WHAT has the RIGHT to know the deep things secrets of GOD but GOD? This is what the Holy Spirit knows and shares and ALWAYS points to Christ that pointed to the Father and yet are ONE.

Now you see this as MAN yet this is all we have. We cant bring GOD down to our lvl of understanding and say..NOPE only ONE! With that you say.. ok praise GOD and move on. It is for me clearly written there are 3 yet are one. Be like saying there are only male angels...did you know this is not written and one talks about a one looking like a woman. Sorry anyway..

So for me.. I know Him.. You talk to Jesus your talking to the Father.. and the Holy Spirit.. kind of hard to grieve something that is not alive for a lack of a better word. So ASK HIM... we keep running to MAN to get answers about GOD. We have HIS word yet we ask MAN. And there is wisdom in asking yet.. GOD/JESUS/HOLY SPIRIT are REAL! And when you ask MAN all you get is what THEY personally believe. And that is NOT all HIS word or ALL of HIM!

So not sure what was being asked.. this 3 in 1 never started with Catholics.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

1st I have to say I am so humbled at those that follow Christ and ONLY believe. Meaning all they really know of Him is by the word of God "bible". He is SO REAL! So to think any MAN will every grasp a GOD that is all powerful so for so on.. lol is foolish. I can only go by what I know and read and have heard.

I have received POWER after the sweet sweet Holy Spirit came on me. I asked and my Father gave Him to me as it is written. What happen to those in the bible is exactly what happen to me. And it is SO true HE never speaks of Him self and ask your self WHO and WHAT has the RIGHT to know the deep things secrets of GOD but GOD? This is what the Holy Spirit knows and shares and ALWAYS points to Christ that pointed to the Father and yet are ONE.

Now you see this as MAN yet this is all we have. We cant bring GOD down to our lvl of understanding and say..NOPE only ONE! With that you say.. ok praise GOD and move on. It is for me clearly written there are 3 yet are one. Be like saying there are only male angels...did you know this is not written and one talks about a one looking like a woman. Sorry anyway..

So for me.. I know Him.. You talk to Jesus your talking to the Father.. and the Holy Spirit.. kind of hard to grieve something that is not alive for a lack of a better word. So ASK HIM... we keep running to MAN to get answers about GOD. We have HIS word yet we ask MAN. And there is wisdom in asking yet.. GOD/JESUS/HOLY SPIRIT are REAL! And when you ask MAN all you get is what THEY personally believe. And that is NOT all HIS word or ALL of HIM!

So not sure what was being asked.. this 3 in 1 never started with Catholics.

The discussion in this thread is not about whether or not God exists as a Trinity; we Orthodox and Catholics agree on that. The only disagreement is whether the spirit proceeds from the Father, or from the Father and the Son. Google "Filioque controversy" for a background.

Our Orthodox view is that the idea that the filioque, the idea the Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son distorts the Monarchianof the Father as the unoriginate source of the uncreated persons of the Godhead who share in the Father's divine nature and energies, and that it also de-personalizes the Spirit, making Him less of a person and more of a force or property shared between the Father and Son, and as a result, that it is a poor way of understanding the Trinity.

God has blessed you with an intimate and personal experience of the Trinity and I am very pleased to see you have been privileged with such an encounter of divine love. May God continue to bless you always. Please pray for me, a sinner.

 

[toLiJC]

A quick history lesson for those of you not familiar with it: in the Middle Ages, the Pope added what is called the "Filioque" to the Nicene Creed, which is the clause that says "and from the Son" regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit. This caused a major controversy, since in the West it was intended to mean that the Holy Spirit's existence is endowed from the Father and the Son as one principle (this is still the position of the Catholic Church). This directly conflicted with Eastern theology, which says that the Father is sole source of the Trinity, the will is furnished by the Father alone, and the existences of the Son and the Holy Spirit are furnished by the Father alone. Thus, the Father's hypostasis, alone, is the bedrock of the entire Trinity. This controversy contributed greatly to the schism (the main issue causing the schism was the Pope's authority over the Church, although this is not the thread to discuss that).

My question is, what is the sentiment today about this? Particularly among Christians who are neither Catholic nor Orthodox. Is the Father alone generally seen as the source of the entire Trinity?

according to what is explained in the Bible, in the beginning was the so-called "Word", and then the "Word" was growing turning out to be the seed of God, and then He grew up turning out to be the "Word" Itself - it is the process of growth from a seed to a mature God also presented in Mark 4:30-32:

"he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom(i.e. the origins) of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it? It(i.e. in the beginning God) is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth(i.e. which, when it is in the beginning of (the) eternity), is less than all the seeds that be in the earth(i.e. is "less" than all things of the universe): But when it is sown(i.e. but when the beginning of (the) eternity starts), it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs(i.e. than all things of the universe), and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air(i.e. so that many Holy Angels) may lodge under the shadow of it."

so first is the "Word", then God the Father, then the Son, and then the Holy Spirit, having in mind that the Holy Spirit is first of all the Spirit of the Father working through the Lord Jesus Christ:

John 15:26 "when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:",

John 16:13-15 "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you."

Blessings

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

according to what is explained in the Bible, in the beginning was the so-called "Word", and then the "Word" was growing turning out to be the seed of God, and then He grew up turning out to be the "Word" Itself - it is the process of growth from a seed to a mature God also presented in Mark 4:30-32:

"he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom(i.e. the origins) of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it? It(i.e. in the beginning God) is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth(i.e. which, when it is in the beginning of (the) eternity), is less than all the seeds that be in the earth(i.e. is "less" than all things of the universe): But when it is sown(i.e. but when the beginning of (the) eternity starts), it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs(i.e. than all things of the universe), and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air(i.e. so that many Holy Angels) may lodge under the shadow of it."

so first is the "Word", then God the Father, then the Son, and then the Holy Spirit, having in mind that the Holy Spirit is first of all the Spirit of the Father working through the Lord Jesus Christ:

John 15:26 "when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:",

John 16:13-15 "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you."

Blessings

The Kingdom of God is simply the Church, it's what is contrasted with the world. It's what is subject to God's reign, as opposed to Satan's reign.

You're over-analyzing that verse, the Bible is not the Da Vinci Code.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Dr. Constantinou is well respected, but with all due respect, she is not an internationally reknowned scholar such as Fr. John Behr, the dean of St. Vladimir's Seminary, who obtained his doctorate under Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, the Metropokitan of Diokleia, auxillary bishop in the Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain, and Professor Emeritus of Eastern Christian Studies at Oxford.

If the Liturgy doesn't call someone a Holy Father, then there is no canonical ground for calling him a Church Father. If some scholars want to do it informally, that's fine, but the highest authority, if we're talking strict definition, is the Liturgy. No use of the term "Church Father", to apply to someone who isn't a Holy Father, has canonical significance.

 

[Neogaia777]

The discussion in this thread is not about whether or not God exists as a Trinity; we Orthodox and Catholics agree on that. The only disagreement is whether the spirit proceeds from the Father, or from the Father and the Son. Google "Filioque controversy" for a background.

Our Orthodox view is that the idea that the filioque, the idea the Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son distorts the Monarchian of the Father as the unoriginate source of the uncreated persons of the Godhead who share in the Father's divine nature and energies, and that it also de-personalizes the Spirit, making Him less of a person and more of a force or property shared between the Father and Son.

How so? How does it do that? From what I can understand about what you are saying is: That if the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son, it can downplay or take away from, the Father(s) (greatness, glory, perhaps?) as being, or not primarily being, the sole, one and only original source of the other (Son and Holy Spirit) person's...? However, aren't they all each equal in glory, honor, power, greatness, ect... but may have different functions or roles or personalities?

How does whether the Spirit proceeds forth from the Father and the Son, or the Father alone... But it can't be the Father alone, he has to proceed from the Father and the Son, does he not...? And, what do you mean "proceed from"? Is it similar to "sent forth from"? Only the Son alone was "sent forth from", and not when he was God, but only when he was man, or became a man, other than that, "they" have always dwelt together in union with each other, one another, "in" the Son as our God... How does what your theorizing or discussing, either way, how does one theory or the other "take away from" or make the Spirit "less of a person in any way...? Could you explain please, perhaps I'm not getting it? Could you clarify in simple, layman's terms, please... (i'm asking cause I'm genuinely curious and would like to know and understand and try to part of the discussion, if you guys don't mind, that is...?)

and as a result, that it is a poor way of understanding the Trinity.

How so? Again, can you explain in simple layman's terms, please...?

God has blessed you with an intimate and personal experience of the Trinity and I am very pleased to see you have been privileged with such an encounter of divine love. May God continue to bless you always. Please pray for me, a sinner.

Yes, I am very happy and very glad for you/him as well... And, as for you, Paul Yohannan, I will pray for you, if you like, if you wish...?

God Bless!

 

[Paul Yohannan]

If the Liturgy doesn't call someone a Holy Father, then there is no canonical ground for calling him a Church Father. If some scholars want to do it informally, that's fine, but the highest authority, if we're talking strict definition, is the Liturgy. No use of the term "Church Father", to apply to someone who isn't a Holy Father, has canonical significance.

We're not talking about Orthodox-internal canons, but about Patristic scholarship. Your attempt to deny that Origen, Tertullian et al had no influence or relevance on Orthodox theology was factually incorrect. The Cappadocian saints, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, and Gregory of Nyssa, even compiled an anthology of Origen's best writings, the Philocalia (not to be confused by the later Athonite anthology on hesychasm compiled by St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite and St. Macarius, the Philokalia, spelled with a "k").

If Origen's works were good enough for the Cappadocians, those which are not heretical, such as those contained in the Cappadocian anthology, are good enough for me, and Origen is an Early Church Father, just not a Father of the Orthodox Church (although there are growing calls to disanathematize him and glorify him based on a realization of the injustice of the Three Chapters of St. Justinian and the fact these were an addendum to the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and not the council itself. Theodore of Mopsuestia is also particularly worthy of re-examination given he was St. John Chrysostom's best friend and tutor. Neither Origen, nor Theodore, nor Diodore of Tarsus, were anathematized in their lifetime.

As an amusing aside, by the way, the Oriental Orthodox St. Severian composed Ho Monoges, later added to the Eastern Orthodox liturgy by St. Justinian in a failed attempt at unity (hence, his wife St. Theodora protecting St. Jacob Baradaeus and enabling him to ordain large numbers of Oriental Orthodox bishops). The Theopaschite character of the Eastern church was seriously endangered by crypto-Nestorians, who actually went into a schism after the Fifth Ecumenical Council in the Roman Church, in the wake of Chalcedon; the Oriental Orthodox preserved it, and it was from us that St. Justinian and other Eastern saints recovered it. The main reason we were opposed is we were confused with the Eutychian monophysite party and the Tritheists.

St. Severian also wrote the oldest known presanctified liturgy, which as far as we know was originally a custom of the Syriac and Coptic churches.

~

By the way, what jurisdiction are you in, and how long have you been Orthodox?

 

[Paul Yohannan]

How so? How does it do that? From what I can understand about what you are saying is: That if the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son, it can downplay or take away from, the Father(s) (greatness, glory, perhaps?) as being, or not primarily being, the sole, one and only original source of the other (Son and Holy Spirit) person's...? However, aren't they all each equal in glory, honor, power, greatness, ect... but may have different functions or roles or personalities?

How does whether the Spirit proceeds forth from the Father and the Son, or the Father alone... But it can't be the Father alone, he has to proceed from the Father and the Son, does he not...? And, what do you mean "proceed from"? Is it similar to "sent forth from"? Only the Son alone was "sent forth from", and not when he was God, but only when he was man, or became a man, other than that, "they" have always dwelt together in union with each other, one another, "in" the Son as our God... How does what your theorizing or discussing, either way, how does one theory or the other "take away from" or make the Spirit "less of a person in any way...? Could you explain please, perhaps I'm not getting it? Could you clarify in simple, layman's terms, please... (i'm asking cause I'm genuinely curious and would like to know and understand and try to part of the discussion, if you guys don't mind, that is...?)



How so? Again, can you explain in simple layman's terms, please...?



Yes, I am very happy and very glad for you/him as well... And, as for you, Paul Yohannan, I will pray for you, if you like, if you wish...?

God Bless!

If you have rejected what I interpreted as neo-Gnostic theology that you used to advocate in Controversial Theology (I may be confusing you with another member), then I would certainly welcome your prayers.

Regarding the Filioque, I can't explain the issue in layman's terms, but I would be happy to send you an ePub of The Orthodox Way by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, which contains the best and simplest explanation of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the act of Prayer, for laymen, that I have found. It is a short read, and a good one, and a bit easier than St. Athanasius (De Incarnatione being written in the dense style of Patristic scholarship; St. Athanasius however is one of the easier Fathers to read, and his Life of St. Anthony is a compelling, suspensful and at the same time, deeply edifying biography you won't be able to stop reading).

 

[Neogaia777]

If you have rejected what I interpreted as neo-Gnostic theology that you used to advocate in Controversial Theology (I may be confusing you with another member), then I would certainly welcome your prayers.

No, I don't subscribe to neo-Gnostic theology, not from what I just looked up on it anyway... You might be confusing me with another member...?

I'll pray for you though, if you wish...? Did you have anything specific?, or do you just want me to speak to him what is on my heart about/with you...?

Regarding the Filioque, I can't explain the issue in layman's terms, but I would be happy to send you an ePub of The Orthodox Way by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, which contains the best and simplest explanation of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the act of Prayer, for laymen, that I have found. It is a short read, and a good one, and a bit easier than St. Athanasius (De Incarnatione being written in the dense style of Patristic scholarship; St. Athanasius however is one of the easier Fathers to read, and his Life of St. Anthony is a compelling, suspensful and at the same time, deeply edifying biography you won't be able to stop reading).

Sure, I'm up for it... Not anything to difficult or too complicated for me to understand without having to research every term or line used though...

Can you send me them or links to them on through here...?

God Bless!

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

We're not talking about Orthodox-internal canons, but about Patristic scholarship. Your attempt to deny that Origen, Tertullian et al had no influence or relevance on Orthodox theology was factually incorrect.

It is factually incorrect, but I never attempted to deny that, so I am unsure as to why you feel the need to level this accusation at me. My issue is with using them as doctrinal authorities. Plato and Aristotle also had theological influence.

The Cappadocian saints, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, and Gregory of Nyssa, even compiled an anthology of Origen's best writings, the Philocalia (not to be confused by the later Athonite anthology on hesychasm compiled by St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite and St. Macarius, the Philokalia, spelled with a "k").

If Origen's works were good enough for the Cappadocians, those which are not heretical, such as those contained in the Cappadocian anthology, are good enough for me, and Origen is an Early Church Father, just not a Father of the Orthodox Church

I don't make a distinction between the Church and the Orthodox Church.

(although there are growing calls to disanathematize him and glorify him based on a realization of the injustice of the Three Chapters of St. Justinian and the fact these were an addendum to the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and not the council itself. Theodore of Mopsuestia is also particularly worthy of re-examination given he was St. John Chrysostom's best friend and tutor. Neither Origen, nor Theodore, nor Diodore of Tarsus, were anathematized in their lifetime.

As an amusing aside, by the way, the Oriental Orthodox St. Severian composed Ho Monoges, later added to the Eastern Orthodox liturgy by St. Justinian in a failed attempt at unity (hence, his wife St. Theodora protecting St. Jacob Baradaeus and enabling him to ordain large numbers of Oriental Orthodox bishops). The Theopaschite character of the Eastern church was seriously endangered by crypto-Nestorians, who actually went into a schism after the Fifth Ecumenical Council in the Roman Church, in the wake of Chalcedon; the Oriental Orthodox preserved it, and it was from us that St. Justinian and other Eastern saints recovered it. The main reason we were opposed is we were confused with the Eutychian monophysite party and the Tritheists.

St. Severian also wrote the oldest known presanctified liturgy, which as far as we know was originally a custom of the Syriac and Coptic churches.

~

You'll notice that you, the Oriental Orthodox, have not canonized Origen a saint after all these years, even though you didn't take part in the council to anathematize him. Why do you think that is? He was a prolific writer, a dedicated ascetic and a renowned thinker--yet never canonized, despite being an early Christian who fits these qualifications. There is a reason he was never canonized, it's because there were some serious issues with his teachings.

There is, as you say, a movement to rescind the anathema against Origen, but I am not concerned with it anymore than I am concerned with the movement to rescind Augustine's sainthood.

By the way, what jurisdiction are you in, and how long have you been Orthodox?

Greek, and a year.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

It is factually incorrect, but I never attempted to deny that, so I am unsure as to why you feel the need to level this accusation at me. My issue is with using them as doctrinal authorities. Plato and Aristotle also had theological influence.



I don't make a distinction between the Church and the Orthodox Church.

Neither do I. Origen was baptized Orthodox, in communion with the Orthodox, and died an Orthodox. He was also a confessor; he was forced by the evil Roman pagans to burn off his own manhood in lieu of sacrificing to the Roman Gods (contrary to popular belief, he did not castrate himself for other reasons; I believe it was Eusebius of Caesarea who popularized that, and Eusebius was in fact an Arian sympathizer and thus arguably did not die in the peace of the church).

Later, a Roman Emperor decided he had the power to anathematize a dead man, who could not repent.

You'll notice that you, the Oriental Orthodox, have not canonized Origen a saint after all these years, even though you didn't take part in the council to anathematize him. Why do you think that is? He was a prolific writer, a dedicated ascetic and a renowned thinker--yet never canonized, despite being an early Christian who fits these qualifications. There is a reason he was never canonized, it's because there were some serious issues with his teachings.

The council did not anathematize him; St. Justinian did, as he had just anathematized Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore of Tarsus in order to appease us, and I believe he included Origen as well in the interests of pleasing the long-brewing anti-Origen movement. Which did not include the Cappadocians; indeed, of the major church fathers of the 4th century only St. Epiphanius, who I do admire, except on this point, blamed Arianism on him, and St. Jerome concurred.

There is, as you say, a movement to rescind the anathema against Origen, but I am not concerned with it anymore than I am concerned with the movement to rescind Augustine's sainthood.


Greek, and a year.

When I first converted to Orthodoxy, I tilted at a few windmills, criticizing Catholics for the filioque, criticizing Protestants for this and that, but I reccommend as a general rule that the newly baptized focus instead on learning all of the liturgical services of the Church, reading the Prologue of Ohrid, The Orthodox Way, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, and the works of the Fathers, particularly St. Athanasius, John of Damascus, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Ambrose of Milan, and Epiphanius of Salamis, and indeed, Origen, through the anthology of "safe" writings the Cappadocians compiled, the Philocalia.

In terms of polemics, its generally best to focus on those churches the Orthodox Church is not actively in the process of restoring ecumenical relations with, but which are instead trying to proselytize in our native lands.

It is easy when we come to the Orthodox church to say "Wow, this is so much better than what we had before!" but, one can then fall into a triumphalism which actually alienates prospective converts to Orthodoxy.

On CF.com in particular, furthermore, there are many areas of apologetics one can engage in, with non-Christians or people who reject the Trinity, where Orthodox doctrine can help win arguments, because, for example, the New Atheist apologists who come here are relying on books by Dawkins et al which were written targeting a strawman charicature of Orthodoxy; they cannot handle Orthodox arguments. Indeed, I saw once as a lurker in Christian Apologetics the tragicomic spectacle of a New Atheist accusing an Orthodox member of trolling and wasting his time, because the Orthodox Christian was presenting an understanding of Christianity that simply did not accord with the man's preconceived categories.