[quote=Montalban]There was no real concept of ‘person’ as we now understand it.
"Aristotelian philosophy with its emphasis on the concrete and the individual, offers the basis of a certain concept of person, but the inability of this philosophy to provide permanence, some kind of continuity and “eternal life”, for the total psychosomatic entity of man renders impossible the union of the person with the “substance” of man, that is, with a true ontology. In Platonic thought the person is a concept which is ontologically impossible, because the soul, which ensures man’s continuity, is not united permanently with the concrete, “individual” man: it lives eternally but it can be united with another concrete body and can constitute another “individuality”, e.g. by reincarnation. With Aristotle, on the other hand, the person proves to be a logically impossible concept precisely because the soul is indissolubly united with the concrete and “individual”: a man is a concrete individuality; he endures, however, only for as long as his psychosomatic union endures - death dissolves the concrete “individuality” completely and definitive
Ancient Greek thought remained tied to the basic principle which it had set itself, the principle that being constitutes in the final analysis a unity in spite of the multiplicity of existent things because concrete existent things finally trace their being back to their necessary relationship and “kinship” with the “one” being, and because consequently every “differentiation” or “accidence” must be somehow regarded as a tendency towards “non-being,” a deterioration of a “fall” from being."
Zizioulas, J. D., (1985) “Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church”, (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press; Crestwood, NY), p28/29.
[quote=Montalban]In their myths, the gods themselves were arbitrary in their dishing out of punishments; such as say in the Trojan Wars where gods helped both sides, depending on who was their favourite.
[quote=KarenNC]Doing things like cursing a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season? Demanding that one’s follower bring his son up on a mountain to be a burnt sacrifice and then saying, no, I didn’t really mean it? Sending a bear to maul 42 children for calling one’s prophet “Baldy?” Cursing with disease the king who married the wife of the chosen founder of one’s religion and all the king’s household, even though the founder presented his wife as his sister and accepted an enormous payment for her marriage to the king, and said he did it so the king would treat him well? Then strike barren every woman in an entire nation and threaten to destroy it when one’s chosen follower does it again? Kill the children, take all the possessions of and strike with horrible disease a faithful follower just to win a bet?
Yes, deeper meanings can be found in all these stories. They can be found in our stories, too.
That would of course depend on whether you believe that these are literal matters. And even if they were, then your best defence, so it seems, is that if you believe in something wrong, and we do something the same, that’s okay.
Or, are you saying that the Greek gods didn’t do these things?
[quote=Montalban]The Christian notion of God is that God is perfect and needs no satisfaction (Catholics may argue against this).
[quote=KarenNC]How does “needs no satisfaction” square with the basic Christian teaching that God required Himself to sacrifice Himself to Himself to save from His damnation creatures that He Himself formed entirely from a situation He Himself created and knew, even before He made them or the situation, the end result of both?
It doesn’t. I don’t believe it. That’s why I said “Catholics may argue against this”. They believe in Satisfaction. Orthodox do not. If you want me to defend someone else’s beliefs, let me know, but I don’t feel that I should have to.