How the World Is Marking the 500th Birthday of Protestantism

[Elok]

Not sure where you're going here, but I suppose that depends on the nature of the error.  If the error is that God briefly incarnated as a toenail shaving in Bulgaria in the year 820, but otherwise the Church is correct in belief and conduct, I suspect God isn't all that fussed about their believing something stupid about Him.  If the error is something that significantly affects correct praxis, or turns it to outright evil, that's a bigger problem.

[Buster's Uncle]

Is LDS, which considers itself Christian, better than nothing, then?

[Elok]

Potentially, though I don't know a lot about their current beliefs.  A lot will depend on where their opinions take them.  If it leads to a good and healthy relationship with God and humanity, in spite of incorrect opinions about salvation and history, then it's better than nothing, certainly.  I believe Orthodoxy is more likely to nurture those correct relationships, and an attendant improvement in the inward nature.  But it's not for me to declare bounds on God's mercy or restrict His freedom of action.

[Buster's Uncle]

I like that last sentence.

So, where does one draw the line at what's too far into, not just error, but blasphemy upon blasphemy?  Surely there's a line, if not one knowable by you and me...

[Elok]

Okay, we're getting into different understandings of what salvation entails here.  Like I've said, we don't believe in the forensic model of sin, where there are a list of rules to be obeyed for their own sake and God gets irked when they are broken, keeping a tally of rules kept vs. broken and basing our fate on that.  We believe there is a fatal rift between us and our creator, that our whole earthly existence is disordered because of that, and it's the Church's job to get us back into good spiritual health.  The rules and processes are means to that end.  We fast not because God is offended by the idea of eating meat on a Friday, but because it has good effects on us if done properly.

Now, God is a person--or three persons, depending how you look at it--and part of respecting Him is getting it right.  We don't keep communion with people who have wrong beliefs about His nature, and we try to be clear on just who God is (albeit there's a strong tradition of defining God negatively, by things we're pretty sure He's not, because God is only knowable in His energies, not His essence, etc.).  But there's no hard line drawn as to what is sort of wrong but acceptable and where you've gone over the line into pooping-in-the-salad-bowl unforgivable impropriety.  It all comes down to right relationships, or at least that's how I think of it.

Suppose a man has come to the mistaken but quite sincere conclusion that God is a hive mind of koala bears, and is absolutely nuts about the idea.  He prays to the koalas three times a day, meditates on the spiritual metaphors inherent in eating only eucalyptus leaves, tells his kids parables about good koala deeds we need to emulate, visits prisoners and the sick in the blessed name of the Koala Kommunity, and composes and performs beautiful hymns as a thank-offering to their manifold cuddly natures.  To what extent is God's pleasure at the good intentions and laudable actions outweighed by the absolutely absurd beliefs they are dedicated to?

[Elok]

Frequently-overlooked Old Testament subtext: ancient Near Eastern deities tended to have an alarming taste for human sacrifice, among other things (verified by archeology in many cases; children really did burn for Moloch).  The point of the sacrifice of Isaac, according to both modern Jewish understanding and ours, is that God doesn't actually want that.  God's anger is not due only to things other than Him being worshiped, but that the things being worshiped are deeply ugly and lead people into other perverse customs.

EDIT: not archaeological evidence, on digging, but I know I've read that it's credible.  Can't recall the book's title, it was a book by a well-known secular historian I can't quite catch ...

[Lorizael]

I thought Abraham's obedience was seen as a good thing, as a test of faith or what have you? So yeah maybe God doesn't want that, but you should still do it if he asks you too?

[Buster's Uncle]

I've read a good case for the burning human sacrifices to Moloch being highly questionable, as the Romans were the source and had a certain interest in Carthage looking bad...

[Green1]

I thought Abraham's obedience was seen as a good thing, as a test of faith or what have you? So yeah maybe God doesn't want that, but you should still do it if he asks you too?

Yeah, that is what I was taught as well. You were supposed to do what sky god told in your head even if it made no sense. It showed faith. At least that is what Bible class said. There were test questions on it!

They have words for that behavior nowadays.

It's called being schizophrenic with homicidal thoughts.

They put you on meds for that and sometimes put you in a cage if you are not rich enough/ have insurance to afford such meds or act on the voice.

[Lorizael]

True, but I don't believe in god and I'm still crazy. Maybe the two aren't related and some people are just crazy?

[Buster's Uncle]

Kind've important to know the difference, though...

[Elok]

Well, there's a billion different takes on it, to be fair.  On second thought, a quick look at the OCA's page on Abraham shows a fairly typical preoccupation with the incident as a type of Christ, and not a lot of interest in the incident considered for its own sake.  That's how we look at most of the OT.  I may have to walk back the part about our POV, I might have confused it with the Jewish one.  But I would say the point of the incident is at least partially to teach Abraham that God is rather different from Moloch/Baal/whoever.

Re: Moloch, this is going to drive me nuts, I can't remember what the book was.  I read it some years ago, I got it from the library in MD, it covered the classical period up through Christianity and had an infuriatingly generic name along the lines of "a history of antiquity," by one of those old-school writers--not a religious one--from the middle-late 20th century who produced a lot of popular history work about that time.  Real popular and respected back in the day and I'm damned if I can remember his name or the precise nature of his argument that Phoenician peoples did, in fact, burn their children.  I want to say it revolved around preserved hymns and prayers recovered from sites around Carthage, can't be sure.  This was c. 2014.  On my own account, I would add that a custom being recorded by two separate groups that far apart (Jews and Romans, opposite ends of the Mediterranean, no known significant contact at the time records were made, speaking of ethnically related peoples) argues for likely truth.  Anyway, googling got me https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/21/carthaginians-sacrificed-own-children-study

[Buster's Uncle]

My take would ultimately be that they probably did, for the reasons you cite and others - but not as many as often as two cultures implacably opposed would like to believe.

[Lorizael]

Kind've important to know the difference, though...

Get used to disappointment.

[Buster's Uncle]

Well that'll be a change.