Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Is Orthodoxy Archaic?
10 views
Skip to first unread message
JamesD
May 26, 2012, 12:36:03 PM5/26/12
to
Is Orthodoxy Archaic?
by Sergei Sazhin
In an article by Vladimir Zelinskii "Pastors and their flock" (Religion in Communist Lands, 1989, v. 17(4), pp. 343-8) many aspects of the life of the Orthodox Church in the USSR were bitterly criticized. He claims that Orthodox services attract mainly babushki (elderly ladies), while most of the young people remain outside the Church. He is convinced that large parts of the liturgy need to be changed so that it can be made more acceptable to the younger generation who, in his opinion, are normally more interested in 'educational' elements of Christianity than in Solemn Liturgies and Akathists. Similar criticisms of the Orthodox Church can be found in many other articles, letters and interviews. It is often claimed that the Orthodox Church underestimates the role of women, is obedient to any authority---even a communist one---by its very nature, etc. etc.. I do not want to idealize Orthodox church life and I agree with many of the criticisms. However, the problem of the Orthodox Church in the Soviet Union lies not in its teaching and not in its ancient Liturgy, but in the specific conditions in which it has had to work since the coup d'etat of 1917. In what follows I hope to explain what I mean, briefly commenting on some typical criticisms of the Orthodox Church in the USSR.
"The Orthodox Liturgy is too archaic and boring to attract young people".
It is true that the Orthodox Church has, as a rule, never attracted young people, or anybody else, by earthly methods, e.g. modem music or interesting lectures. The Orthodox Church never forgets that it is a temple of God, not a social club or a popular Sunday school. Surely this is a strong point, not a weakness. The word of God should be brought to people in their own language. It is important, however, to distinguish between the Church proper, where we come to worship God, and Christian clubs and societies where we can, for example, discuss Christianity on an intellectual level or seek to apply it to our social life in various ways. In the ideal situation, liturgical and social life should complement each other, with liturgical life being always at the center. This is clearly understood by most young Orthodox believers in the USSR. Very often their Christian social life has had to be transferred from the church buildings into private dwellings because of the specific conditions prevailing in the USSR. But the same young people almost never undervalue the Liturgy. Moreover, the Divine Liturgy has always been one of the most common themes of the underground Christian seminars, and I do not remember the question of its possible reform ever being discussed.
"Orthodox prayers are too formal and hinder personal contact with God"
It is true that prayer is primarily our live conversation with God and it should be pronounced by our heart rather than by our tongue. However, like our body, our spirit needs food, and one of the ways of receiving this food is to use prayers written by the saints and teachers of the Church. These prayers help us at a subconscious level to direct our spirit to our Lord. They do not contradict, but rather complement, our internal personal prayer.
"The Orthodox Church endorses extreme Russian nationalism and anti-Semitism."
It is true that some members of the organization "Pamyats" and similar anti-Semitic organizations are Orthodox. However, it is important to distinguish between their attitude to the Orthodox Church as the Church of God and their attitude to it as a convenient rallying point for extreme Russian nationalism. One of the leaders of "Pamyats", Vasiliev, confessed in one of his talks that he doubted whether God exists, but he still supported the Orthodox Church for practical purposes. In fact, the extreme right wing of "Pamyats", the Emel'anontzy, consider Christianity to be a Judeo-masonic heresy! On the other hand many Jews are active members of the Orthodox Church in the USSR (e.g. the Rev. Alexander Men, Zoya Krakhmalnikova).
The Orthodox Church underestimates the role of women.
I doubt if one could find a single Orthodox woman who would endorse the idea of female priests in the Orthodox Church. However, this is by no means to underestimate the important role played by women in the Church. The Mother of God is the most venerable human being; women were the first to meet our risen Lord; Russian women, Orthodox saints like St. Olga and St. Xenia are well known and highly respected. During the persecutions of Christianity in the USSR, babushki risked their lives hiding precious icons from the Bolsheviks, and sometimes hiding even persecuted priests. Their work is remembered on earth and, most importantly, rewarded in Heaven.
"The Orthodox Church is obedient to all authorities including anti-Christian ones."
Often I have come across the opinion that the current state of the Orthodox Church in the USSR has its roots in the Byzantine tradition of "symphony" (consonance). However, it is a gross oversimplification lo consider "symphony" as submission of the Church to the will of emperors. The aim of "symphony" was to complement the civic power of emperors with the spiritual power of the Church and vice versa. So the Church was in principle submissive to emperors just as emperors were submissive to the Church, although in practice this ideal consonance was often disrupted in Byzantium and later also in Russia.
The main difference between Byzantine emperors and Soviet rulers is that the former were Christian (at least nominally) while the latter were supposed to be anti-Christian. From this point of view it is senseless to speak of any 'symphony' in the Soviet Union, even in the epoch of perestroika. This has been best of all illustrated by the well known persecution of Orthodox Christians. Individual Christians and even leaders of the Church may apparently be obedient to anti-Christian authorities, but the Orthodox Church is ultimately obedient only to Christ.
Issue 100
Vol. X, No. 10
June, 1990
Orthodox America
by Sergei Sazhin
In an article by Vladimir Zelinskii "Pastors and their flock" (Religion in Communist Lands, 1989, v. 17(4), pp. 343-8) many aspects of the life of the Orthodox Church in the USSR were bitterly criticized. He claims that Orthodox services attract mainly babushki (elderly ladies), while most of the young people remain outside the Church. He is convinced that large parts of the liturgy need to be changed so that it can be made more acceptable to the younger generation who, in his opinion, are normally more interested in 'educational' elements of Christianity than in Solemn Liturgies and Akathists. Similar criticisms of the Orthodox Church can be found in many other articles, letters and interviews. It is often claimed that the Orthodox Church underestimates the role of women, is obedient to any authority---even a communist one---by its very nature, etc. etc.. I do not want to idealize Orthodox church life and I agree with many of the criticisms. However, the problem of the Orthodox Church in the Soviet Union lies not in its teaching and not in its ancient Liturgy, but in the specific conditions in which it has had to work since the coup d'etat of 1917. In what follows I hope to explain what I mean, briefly commenting on some typical criticisms of the Orthodox Church in the USSR.
"The Orthodox Liturgy is too archaic and boring to attract young people".
It is true that the Orthodox Church has, as a rule, never attracted young people, or anybody else, by earthly methods, e.g. modem music or interesting lectures. The Orthodox Church never forgets that it is a temple of God, not a social club or a popular Sunday school. Surely this is a strong point, not a weakness. The word of God should be brought to people in their own language. It is important, however, to distinguish between the Church proper, where we come to worship God, and Christian clubs and societies where we can, for example, discuss Christianity on an intellectual level or seek to apply it to our social life in various ways. In the ideal situation, liturgical and social life should complement each other, with liturgical life being always at the center. This is clearly understood by most young Orthodox believers in the USSR. Very often their Christian social life has had to be transferred from the church buildings into private dwellings because of the specific conditions prevailing in the USSR. But the same young people almost never undervalue the Liturgy. Moreover, the Divine Liturgy has always been one of the most common themes of the underground Christian seminars, and I do not remember the question of its possible reform ever being discussed.
"Orthodox prayers are too formal and hinder personal contact with God"
It is true that prayer is primarily our live conversation with God and it should be pronounced by our heart rather than by our tongue. However, like our body, our spirit needs food, and one of the ways of receiving this food is to use prayers written by the saints and teachers of the Church. These prayers help us at a subconscious level to direct our spirit to our Lord. They do not contradict, but rather complement, our internal personal prayer.
"The Orthodox Church endorses extreme Russian nationalism and anti-Semitism."
It is true that some members of the organization "Pamyats" and similar anti-Semitic organizations are Orthodox. However, it is important to distinguish between their attitude to the Orthodox Church as the Church of God and their attitude to it as a convenient rallying point for extreme Russian nationalism. One of the leaders of "Pamyats", Vasiliev, confessed in one of his talks that he doubted whether God exists, but he still supported the Orthodox Church for practical purposes. In fact, the extreme right wing of "Pamyats", the Emel'anontzy, consider Christianity to be a Judeo-masonic heresy! On the other hand many Jews are active members of the Orthodox Church in the USSR (e.g. the Rev. Alexander Men, Zoya Krakhmalnikova).
The Orthodox Church underestimates the role of women.
I doubt if one could find a single Orthodox woman who would endorse the idea of female priests in the Orthodox Church. However, this is by no means to underestimate the important role played by women in the Church. The Mother of God is the most venerable human being; women were the first to meet our risen Lord; Russian women, Orthodox saints like St. Olga and St. Xenia are well known and highly respected. During the persecutions of Christianity in the USSR, babushki risked their lives hiding precious icons from the Bolsheviks, and sometimes hiding even persecuted priests. Their work is remembered on earth and, most importantly, rewarded in Heaven.
"The Orthodox Church is obedient to all authorities including anti-Christian ones."
Often I have come across the opinion that the current state of the Orthodox Church in the USSR has its roots in the Byzantine tradition of "symphony" (consonance). However, it is a gross oversimplification lo consider "symphony" as submission of the Church to the will of emperors. The aim of "symphony" was to complement the civic power of emperors with the spiritual power of the Church and vice versa. So the Church was in principle submissive to emperors just as emperors were submissive to the Church, although in practice this ideal consonance was often disrupted in Byzantium and later also in Russia.
The main difference between Byzantine emperors and Soviet rulers is that the former were Christian (at least nominally) while the latter were supposed to be anti-Christian. From this point of view it is senseless to speak of any 'symphony' in the Soviet Union, even in the epoch of perestroika. This has been best of all illustrated by the well known persecution of Orthodox Christians. Individual Christians and even leaders of the Church may apparently be obedient to anti-Christian authorities, but the Orthodox Church is ultimately obedient only to Christ.
Issue 100
Vol. X, No. 10
June, 1990
Orthodox America
JamesD
May 26, 2012, 6:50:03 PM5/26/12
to
On Saturday, May 26, 2012 3:43:54 PM UTC-7, RVG wrote:
> Le 27/05/2012 00:34, "science man" a écrit :
> > "It's obvious that nobody today who is aware of the current state of
> > scientific knowledge (especially neurosciences, like
> > neuroplasticity that is being discovered) can find more than some
> > metaphors in the biblical fables. It's a case of either/or. Either
> > the Bible is true and science is false, then prove it; or it's the
> > other way. You can't have both."
> >
> > Those who know the state of science today would not agree. I follow
> > it closely, I was trained to use it.
> >
>
> I doubt it.
>
> > There is nothing in neuroscience that can speak to the points you
> > raise. Any "evidence" to the contrary gladly entertained.
> >
>
> Neuroscience explains all the mystical phenomena. Incompleteness of the
> individual (hence death) explains empathy and most of the so-called
> miracles come from playing the empathy chord very loudly.
> So far I've seen nothing more miraculous than a couple of Arctic sterns
> flying pole to pole and finding both their nests every year.
> If simple birds can do that, then certainly the human brain is capable
> of much more astonishing - but still natural - things.
>
> > It is a now tired false dichotomy, that science and religion thing.
> > It is a crutch for those who have decided on faith to not believe.
> > That is the real yes or no question and there is nothing in science
> > to help, nothing.
> >
>
> You mean that Darwin, Einstein and Noah's Ark are compatible ? Or that
> the tale of the woman eating from a magic tree after listening to a
> talking snake, thus causing the mortality of all the living beings on
> earth, is as true as molecular biology and genetics ?
>
> --
> « Dieu n'est-il pas le poète suprême en tant qu'il improvise les mondes ? »
> Vladimir Jankélévitch
>
>
> http://rvgmusic.bandcamp.com/
> http://www.jamendo.com/fr/user/RVG95
> http://bluedusk.blogspot.com/
I hope you find comfort and acceptance in your science and scientific ideas,
Vassili. I know that I find comfort in what you consider fables and myth. Good
luck. You're going to need it.
> Le 27/05/2012 00:34, "science man" a écrit :
> > "It's obvious that nobody today who is aware of the current state of
> > scientific knowledge (especially neurosciences, like
> > neuroplasticity that is being discovered) can find more than some
> > metaphors in the biblical fables. It's a case of either/or. Either
> > the Bible is true and science is false, then prove it; or it's the
> > other way. You can't have both."
> >
> > Those who know the state of science today would not agree. I follow
> > it closely, I was trained to use it.
> >
>
> I doubt it.
>
> > There is nothing in neuroscience that can speak to the points you
> > raise. Any "evidence" to the contrary gladly entertained.
> >
>
> Neuroscience explains all the mystical phenomena. Incompleteness of the
> individual (hence death) explains empathy and most of the so-called
> miracles come from playing the empathy chord very loudly.
> So far I've seen nothing more miraculous than a couple of Arctic sterns
> flying pole to pole and finding both their nests every year.
> If simple birds can do that, then certainly the human brain is capable
> of much more astonishing - but still natural - things.
>
> > It is a now tired false dichotomy, that science and religion thing.
> > It is a crutch for those who have decided on faith to not believe.
> > That is the real yes or no question and there is nothing in science
> > to help, nothing.
> >
>
> You mean that Darwin, Einstein and Noah's Ark are compatible ? Or that
> the tale of the woman eating from a magic tree after listening to a
> talking snake, thus causing the mortality of all the living beings on
> earth, is as true as molecular biology and genetics ?
>
> --
> « Dieu n'est-il pas le poète suprême en tant qu'il improvise les mondes ? »
> Vladimir Jankélévitch
>
>
> http://rvgmusic.bandcamp.com/
> http://www.jamendo.com/fr/user/RVG95
> http://bluedusk.blogspot.com/
I hope you find comfort and acceptance in your science and scientific ideas,
Vassili. I know that I find comfort in what you consider fables and myth. Good
luck. You're going to need it.
JamesD
May 27, 2012, 4:16:56 PM5/27/12
to
Sin is a myth? Really? Then stop whining about your condition at the hands of these government officials. What they are doing is not sinful. They are doing it because they can. They have the power and you do not. There is no right or wrong in their actions, unfortunately for you.
RVG
Jun 1, 2012, 6:30:42 AM6/1/12
to
Le 28/05/2012 19:05, "science man" a écrit :
> "They're not mine, you see: science is *objective* and everything is
> proved, right or wrong."
>
> Then apply science to the question of God. On that question science
> stands absolutely mute.
>
It's not a question, not more than the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
First show (a) God and then let's observe him/them/her.
> If you can not then your view of God is by faith only, just like all
> of us.
>
Faith is belief, ie it cannot pretend to truth. It's just a dice roll, a
blind bet.
Even miracles, most of them, can be explained by the quantum properties
of nature.
The old scribes of the Bible had no methodical knowledge of nature.
There was what the saw with their senses, and then phenomena that seemed
to contradict those simple observations. They called them "miracles" and
attributed them to various invisible spirits, benevolent of evil, and
eventually came with the notion that there had to be a sort of king of
them all that they called YHWH.
We can understand their mental process and find it practically
justified: with this belief loving leaders like Moses gave their people
means to live lives of decency and care, develop goodness for each other
and means to defend themselves against enemies while not falling into
blind, animal-like hatred.
> If you can not then grasping science in place of God is an empty
> crutch.
Enforcing obsolete, unproven dogmas in a society where only discussable
(and discussed by the constitutionally legal representatives of the
people) laws can prevail, is equally pointless.
> "They're not mine, you see: science is *objective* and everything is
> proved, right or wrong."
>
> Then apply science to the question of God. On that question science
> stands absolutely mute.
>
It's not a question, not more than the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
First show (a) God and then let's observe him/them/her.
> If you can not then your view of God is by faith only, just like all
> of us.
>
Faith is belief, ie it cannot pretend to truth. It's just a dice roll, a
blind bet.
Even miracles, most of them, can be explained by the quantum properties
of nature.
The old scribes of the Bible had no methodical knowledge of nature.
There was what the saw with their senses, and then phenomena that seemed
to contradict those simple observations. They called them "miracles" and
attributed them to various invisible spirits, benevolent of evil, and
eventually came with the notion that there had to be a sort of king of
them all that they called YHWH.
We can understand their mental process and find it practically
justified: with this belief loving leaders like Moses gave their people
means to live lives of decency and care, develop goodness for each other
and means to defend themselves against enemies while not falling into
blind, animal-like hatred.
> If you can not then grasping science in place of God is an empty
> crutch.
Enforcing obsolete, unproven dogmas in a society where only discussable
(and discussed by the constitutionally legal representatives of the
people) laws can prevail, is equally pointless.
RVG
Jun 1, 2012, 6:36:58 AM6/1/12
to
Le 28/05/2012 19:18, "science man"' a écrit :
>> There is no "truth" in science. It has at any time an account
>> which to understand observations is always contingent and subject
>> to change. As
> the
>> observed information changes the account changes. It has changed
>> accordingly in history and will continue to do so.
>>
>
> "Yes, that's what makes it true: its method. Nothing *else* is true
> because nothing else is proven. The Bible is a fairytale just like
> astrology and all the pre-scientific crap like alchemy, etc."
>
> So your version of "truth" is an ever changing target? Hardly seems
> worthy of the idea. Best to abandon "truth" and adopt "today's
> consensus in science".
>
Truth is indeed a thesis that is not contradicted by facts.
Dogmas OTOH have absolutely NO FACTS to prove any of them.
> It seems to me this is part of the crutch you have made of science.
>
> It has been observed that the more we know, as in science, the more
> we know what there is yet to know. That means ignorance is
> expanding at an exponential rate. Thus your non-truth "truth"
> produces only ignorance, no?
>
The religious alternative being the belief in Rib-Woman, Talking Snake
and this silly contraption made of an old guy in the sky, a younger guy
on a stick and a glowing pigeon.
> In another post in this same thread I asked you to apply science to
> the question of God, we await events.
Science doesn't have to question illusions, fairy-tales or anything
unobserved and unobservable.
> By it we will know the potential and limitations of science to
> answer such questions.
God is not a question until there's any positive sign of his existence.
So far there's been none.
>> There is no "truth" in science. It has at any time an account
>> which to understand observations is always contingent and subject
>> to change. As
> the
>> observed information changes the account changes. It has changed
>> accordingly in history and will continue to do so.
>>
>
> "Yes, that's what makes it true: its method. Nothing *else* is true
> because nothing else is proven. The Bible is a fairytale just like
> astrology and all the pre-scientific crap like alchemy, etc."
>
> So your version of "truth" is an ever changing target? Hardly seems
> worthy of the idea. Best to abandon "truth" and adopt "today's
> consensus in science".
>
Truth is indeed a thesis that is not contradicted by facts.
Dogmas OTOH have absolutely NO FACTS to prove any of them.
> It seems to me this is part of the crutch you have made of science.
>
> It has been observed that the more we know, as in science, the more
> we know what there is yet to know. That means ignorance is
> expanding at an exponential rate. Thus your non-truth "truth"
> produces only ignorance, no?
>
The religious alternative being the belief in Rib-Woman, Talking Snake
and this silly contraption made of an old guy in the sky, a younger guy
on a stick and a glowing pigeon.
> In another post in this same thread I asked you to apply science to
> the question of God, we await events.
Science doesn't have to question illusions, fairy-tales or anything
unobserved and unobservable.
> By it we will know the potential and limitations of science to
> answer such questions.
God is not a question until there's any positive sign of his existence.
So far there's been none.
"science man"
Jun 1, 2012, 2:06:29 PM6/1/12
to
> In another post in this same thread I asked you to apply science to
> the question of God, we await events.
"Science doesn't have to question illusions, fairy-tales or anything
unobserved and unobservable."
Very very good, therein you expose the very failure of science to be able
> the question of God, we await events.
"Science doesn't have to question illusions, fairy-tales or anything
unobserved and unobservable."
to address the question of God. Without observable information to
evaluate, the enjine of science stands absolutely mute on this question.
So when those who declare that God can not exist because of what science
does/has done, they are speaking from a point of faith alone in their
theology. The assumed support of science evaporates like mist in the heat
of the sun of truth.
"history man"
Jun 1, 2012, 2:15:40 PM6/1/12
to
"Until further proven, Jesus of Nazareth, *if* he even existed (there is
no material proof at all), only died for "his" sin: loving everybody
like himself."
What is the "material proof" for any person of ancient history? What is it
for socrates and alexander the great?
You would be hard pressed to find an academic expert, person of faith or
not, who would not concur that Jesus was a historical figure.
pyotr filipivich
Jun 1, 2012, 3:15:23 PM6/1/12
to
"science man" on 01 Jun 2012 18:06:29 GMT typed in
alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox the following:
They are also reveling that they too are philosophical
materialists. Only that which they can see or conceive, is real.
Hmm, I wonder how exactly they differ from the Sadducees?
tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
Gott hilfen und wir leben.
(God helping and we live ..)
alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox the following:
materialists. Only that which they can see or conceive, is real.
Hmm, I wonder how exactly they differ from the Sadducees?
tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
Gott hilfen und wir leben.
(God helping and we live ..)
pyotr filipivich
Jun 1, 2012, 3:15:23 PM6/1/12
to
RVG <not....@themoment.invalid.org> on Fri, 01 Jun 2012 12:20:33
+0200 typed in alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox the following:
>Le 28/05/2012 07:27, pyotr filipivich a écrit :
>> RVG<not....@themoment.invalid.org> on Sun, 27 May 2012 22:46:26
>> +0200 typed in alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox the following:
>>> Ever heard of justice and right ?
>>
>> What has that got to do with it?
>>> Nothing involving retarded myths, just plain good old reason as
>>> used by Socrates, Plato, Aristotles and Montesquieu.
>>
>> Well, that follows, if everyone agrees that a) "justice" and "right"
>> are useful and B) that Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Montesquieu
>> should be considered authoritative. Why not Jean-Paul Sartre,
>
>Sartre is a valid philosopher. Some of his ideas inspired French laws
>passed by the Resistance after the war.
Yes, and ... he's a role model for all people?
>
>> Iosif V. Dzhugashvili, Donatien A. François or Saloth Sar?
>>
>
>Stalin OK, but who are the others ?
Donatien A. François, Marquis de Sade.
Saloth Sar, Cambodia Agrarian Reformer, better known as Brother
Number One, or Pol Pot.
>> You picks your authorities, and you go with them.
>
>The authority is the clear and distinct idea, not any given individual.
Yes, the ideas of Sartre, Dzhugashvili, François and Sar are just
a authoritative as anyone else's. Could toss in the ideas of Hegel
for that matter. Whatever makes sense to you.
>Until further proven, Jesus of Nazareth, *if* he even existed (there is
>no material proof at all), only died for "his" sin: loving everybody
>like himself.
Such is your opinion. Not what his followers believe, but you're
free to have your own opinion.
>Feel free to die for me, or better: give your life for your worst enemy.
>Are you ready to face you murderer and embrace him wholeheartedly while
>he'll stab you to death ?
>If not, you're not a Christian, just one of these faggots who repeat
>"Lord ! Lord !" all day long and to whom Jesus said: "I don't know you."
So I can take it then, that you are not a Christian, omicron or
omega Orthodox, but someone picking and choosing which ideas you like.
+0200 typed in alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox the following:
>Le 28/05/2012 07:27, pyotr filipivich a écrit :
>> RVG<not....@themoment.invalid.org> on Sun, 27 May 2012 22:46:26
>> +0200 typed in alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox the following:
>>
>> What has that got to do with it?
>>> Nothing involving retarded myths, just plain good old reason as
>>> used by Socrates, Plato, Aristotles and Montesquieu.
>>
>> Well, that follows, if everyone agrees that a) "justice" and "right"
>> are useful and B) that Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Montesquieu
>> should be considered authoritative. Why not Jean-Paul Sartre,
>
>Sartre is a valid philosopher. Some of his ideas inspired French laws
>passed by the Resistance after the war.
Yes, and ... he's a role model for all people?
>
>> Iosif V. Dzhugashvili, Donatien A. François or Saloth Sar?
>>
>
>Stalin OK, but who are the others ?
Donatien A. François, Marquis de Sade.
Saloth Sar, Cambodia Agrarian Reformer, better known as Brother
Number One, or Pol Pot.
>> You picks your authorities, and you go with them.
>
>The authority is the clear and distinct idea, not any given individual.
Yes, the ideas of Sartre, Dzhugashvili, François and Sar are just
a authoritative as anyone else's. Could toss in the ideas of Hegel
for that matter. Whatever makes sense to you.
>Until further proven, Jesus of Nazareth, *if* he even existed (there is
>no material proof at all), only died for "his" sin: loving everybody
>like himself.
free to have your own opinion.
>Feel free to die for me, or better: give your life for your worst enemy.
>Are you ready to face you murderer and embrace him wholeheartedly while
>he'll stab you to death ?
>If not, you're not a Christian, just one of these faggots who repeat
>"Lord ! Lord !" all day long and to whom Jesus said: "I don't know you."
So I can take it then, that you are not a Christian, omicron or
omega Orthodox, but someone picking and choosing which ideas you like.
RVG
Jun 2, 2012, 6:18:11 AM6/2/12
to
Le 01/06/2012 20:06, "science man" a écrit :
>> In another post in this same thread I asked you to apply science to
>> the question of God, we await events.
>
> "Science doesn't have to question illusions, fairy-tales or anything
> unobserved and unobservable."
>
> Very very good, therein you expose the very failure of science to be
> able to address the question of God.
How is this a failure ? Science doesn't either address the question of
>> In another post in this same thread I asked you to apply science to
>> the question of God, we await events.
>
> "Science doesn't have to question illusions, fairy-tales or anything
> unobserved and unobservable."
>
> Very very good, therein you expose the very failure of science to be
> able to address the question of God.
the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other chimera came out of the human
imagination.
> Without observable information to evaluate, the enjine of science
> stands absolutely mute on this question.
>
> So when those who declare that God can not exist because of what
> science does/has done, they are speaking from a point of faith alone
> in their theology.
accurate theories and observing more and more phenomena with more and
more accuracy, no observation or experience has *never* opened the
possibility of the intervention of any supernatural being; in other
words everything in nature, including the human mind and consciousness,
are natural.
As for the origin of the Big Bang, the question is moot: the Big Band IS
the origin, there's no "before": time starts at and with the Big Bang.
For the irrelevance of questions like "Where is the universe ?" or "When
did it start ?" read Wittgenstein.
> The assumed support of science evaporates like mist in the heat of
> the sun of truth.
belief empties this last sentence of any content and pertinence.
RVG
Jun 2, 2012, 6:26:03 AM6/2/12
to
Le 01/06/2012 21:15, pyotr filipivich a écrit :
> "science man" on 01 Jun 2012 18:06:29 GMT typed in
> alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox the following:
>>> In another post in this same thread I asked you to apply science
>>> to the question of God, we await events.
>>
>> "Science doesn't have to question illusions, fairy-tales or
>> anything unobserved and unobservable."
>>
>> Very very good, therein you expose the very failure of science to
>> be able to address the question of God. Without observable
>> information to evaluate, the enjine of science stands absolutely
>> mute on this question.
>>
>> So when those who declare that God can not exist because of what
>> science does/has done, they are speaking from a point of faith
>> alone in their theology. The assumed support of science
>> evaporates like mist in the heat of the sun of truth.
>
> They are also reveling that they too are philosophical materialists.
Matter is an abstraction. Quantum physics assumes that the core of
> "science man" on 01 Jun 2012 18:06:29 GMT typed in
> alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox the following:
>>> In another post in this same thread I asked you to apply science
>>> to the question of God, we await events.
>>
>> "Science doesn't have to question illusions, fairy-tales or
>> anything unobserved and unobservable."
>>
>> Very very good, therein you expose the very failure of science to
>> be able to address the question of God. Without observable
>> information to evaluate, the enjine of science stands absolutely
>> mute on this question.
>>
>> So when those who declare that God can not exist because of what
>> science does/has done, they are speaking from a point of faith
>> alone in their theology. The assumed support of science
>> evaporates like mist in the heat of the sun of truth.
>
> They are also reveling that they too are philosophical materialists.
reality is information, hence the process of creation (or novelty, or
negative entropy) is inherent to the universe at physical level.
Read Ilya Prigogine (Chemistry Nobel Prize).
> Only that which they can see or conceive, is real.
>
theory becomes obsolete and the logical failure it was based on must be
identified and corrected in order to present a new theory that takes
this phenomenon into account at scientific level, ie the theory must be
able to predict new occurrences of this phenomenon while retaining or
enhancing the level of predictability of the previously observed and
described phenomena.
There's no observable phenomenon that qualifies as divine or
supernatural, therefore the hypothesis of a divine or supernatural being
(or beings) isn't needed in any field of scientific research and
theorization, nor is it in philosophy except in domains such as history
and psychology.
> Hmm, I wonder how exactly they differ from the Sadducees?
>
discovered anything of value.
Then again, if science is false you're not using a computer and you
can't play a laser disc. Semi-conductors and laser are applications of
quantum mechanics.
RVG
Jun 3, 2012, 2:55:02 PM6/3/12
to
Le 01/06/2012 20:15, "history man" a écrit :
> "Until further proven, Jesus of Nazareth, *if* he even existed (there
> is no material proof at all), only died for "his" sin: loving
> everybody like himself."
>
> What is the "material proof" for any person of ancient history? What
> is it for socrates and alexander the great?
>
They didn't make miracles. So their existence is believable. Jesus OTOH
> "Until further proven, Jesus of Nazareth, *if* he even existed (there
> is no material proof at all), only died for "his" sin: loving
> everybody like himself."
>
> What is the "material proof" for any person of ancient history? What
> is it for socrates and alexander the great?
>
is more like a myth/super-hero that requires quite a lot of gullibility
to acknowledge.
> You would be hard pressed to find an academic expert, person of faith
> or not, who would not concur that Jesus was a historical figure.
even if a real Jesus the Nazarene ever existed, the four randomly chosen
gospels (among dozens of others written at the time) wrote about him are
at least 99% fictional, starting with the virginal conception.
Start with Auguste Comte.
RVG
Jun 3, 2012, 3:01:03 PM6/3/12
to
Le 01/06/2012 21:15, pyotr filipivich a écrit :
> RVG<not....@themoment.invalid.org> on Fri, 01 Jun 2012 12:20:33
There's a human feature called "reason".
Sade didn't do anything by himself, he was a provocator who wrote all of
his books in prison. In 1789 he was the sole prisoner of La Bastille, on
his own will.
Stalin was a priest and, like Lenin, led the USSR after the fashion of
the orthodox pumps.
Pol Pot was about as crazy as Ivan the Terrible, but with modern tools
and strategy, more effective.
>> Until further proven, Jesus of Nazareth, *if* he even existed
>> (there is no material proof at all), only died for "his" sin:
>> loving everybody like himself.
>
> Such is your opinion. Not what his followers believe, but you're
> free to have your own opinion.
>
You mean you have material evidence of Jesus' existence ? Please share !
>> Feel free to die for me, or better: give your life for your worst
>> enemy. Are you ready to face you murderer and embrace him
>> wholeheartedly while he'll stab you to death ? If not, you're not a
>> Christian, just one of these faggots who repeat "Lord ! Lord !" all
>> day long and to whom Jesus said: "I don't know you."
>
> So I can take it then, that you are not a Christian, omicron or omega
> Orthodox, but someone picking and choosing which ideas you like.
No, just ideas that can be proven and demonstrated.
As soon as there is something divine or godly that can be objectively
observed, I'll take it into consideration.
Oh, and praying is just talking alone while watching a stupid painting.
Then again: prove me wrong.
> RVG<not....@themoment.invalid.org> on Fri, 01 Jun 2012 12:20:33
Sade didn't do anything by himself, he was a provocator who wrote all of
his books in prison. In 1789 he was the sole prisoner of La Bastille, on
his own will.
Stalin was a priest and, like Lenin, led the USSR after the fashion of
the orthodox pumps.
Pol Pot was about as crazy as Ivan the Terrible, but with modern tools
and strategy, more effective.
>> Until further proven, Jesus of Nazareth, *if* he even existed
>> (there is no material proof at all), only died for "his" sin:
>> loving everybody like himself.
>
> Such is your opinion. Not what his followers believe, but you're
> free to have your own opinion.
>
>> Feel free to die for me, or better: give your life for your worst
>> enemy. Are you ready to face you murderer and embrace him
>> wholeheartedly while he'll stab you to death ? If not, you're not a
>> Christian, just one of these faggots who repeat "Lord ! Lord !" all
>> day long and to whom Jesus said: "I don't know you."
>
> So I can take it then, that you are not a Christian, omicron or omega
> Orthodox, but someone picking and choosing which ideas you like.
As soon as there is something divine or godly that can be objectively
observed, I'll take it into consideration.
Oh, and praying is just talking alone while watching a stupid painting.
Then again: prove me wrong.
"history man"
Jun 4, 2012, 11:57:36 AM6/4/12
to
> "Until further proven, Jesus of Nazareth, *if* he even existed (there
> is no material proof at all), only died for "his" sin: loving
> everybody like himself."
>
> What is the "material proof" for any person of ancient history? What
> is it for socrates and alexander the great?
>
"They didn't make miracles. So their existence is believable. Jesus OTOH is
more like a myth/super-hero that requires quite a lot of gullibility to
acknowledge."
Alexander is reported to have made miracles. Those of Christ had thousands
> is no material proof at all), only died for "his" sin: loving
> everybody like himself."
>
> What is the "material proof" for any person of ancient history? What
> is it for socrates and alexander the great?
>
"They didn't make miracles. So their existence is believable. Jesus OTOH is
more like a myth/super-hero that requires quite a lot of gullibility to
acknowledge."
of witnesses.
> You would be hard pressed to find an academic expert, person of faith
> or not, who would not concur that Jesus was a historical figure.
"No, the common ground for real historians and other scientists is that
even if a real Jesus the Nazarene ever existed, the four randomly chosen
gospels (among dozens of others written at the time) wrote about him are at
least 99% fictional, starting with the virginal conception."
subject. The observation is that among "real" academics who study this
question it is the rare bird who would say Christ did not exist, full stop.
Science has no place in that discussion. The rest of your remarks enter
into the area that got you into trouble in the first place. They are
opinion and neither history or science. A "real" historian might speculate
as you have but be willing to admit that is exactly what it is.
As before, your theology is born of faith alone that such assertion not
founded in history or science is valid.
"science man"
Jun 4, 2012, 12:17:43 PM6/4/12
to
Keywords:
>> In another post in this same thread I asked you to apply science to
>> the question of God, we await events.
>
> "Science doesn't have to question illusions, fairy-tales or anything
> unobserved and unobservable."
>
> Very very good, therein you expose the very failure of science to be
> able to address the question of God.
"How is this a failure ? Science doesn't either address the question of the
Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other chimera came out of the human
imagination."
I like the flying teapot example more because I'm a great user of chinese
type teas.
We can look to computer science. They have a dictum, garbage in garbage
out. In the case of the enjine of science, no information in, no
information out. On the question of God, there it stands absolutely mute.
> Without observable information to evaluate, the enjine of science
> stands absolutely mute on this question.
>
> So when those who declare that God can not exist because of what
> science does/has done, they are speaking from a point of faith alone
> in their theology.
"No, science only says that after centuries of developing more and more
accurate theories and observing more and more phenomena with more and more
accuracy, no observation or experience has *never* opened the possibility
of the intervention of any supernatural being; in other words everything in
nature, including the human mind and consciousness, are natural. As for the
origin of the Big Bang, the question is moot: the Big Band IS the origin,
there's no "before": time starts at and with the Big Bang."
No, after all that the lack of information thus generated does is confirm
the above. The enjine of science stands absolutely mute on the question.
The very very best that idea holds is that for the limited amount of what
we know can be discussed without reference to the supernatural. It does
not exclude the supernatural. After each new observation and theory we can
say, "ah, so that is how God did/does it".
"For the irrelevance of questions like "Where is the universe ?" or "When
did it start ?" read Wittgenstein."
Not relevant to the discussion of can science address the question of God.
Evoking authority is the poorest form of evidence.
> The assumed support of science evaporates like mist in the heat of
> the sun of truth.
"Your failed "logic" based on lack of proper education and irrational
belief empties this last sentence of any content and pertinence."
Thank you, I take that personal attack as confirmation of the failure of
science as discussed thus far. And of the continued lack of "proof" you
were asked to provide in support of your assertion of the power of science
to do same. I take it as additional confirmation that your theology is
firmly based in faith alone.
>> In another post in this same thread I asked you to apply science to
>> the question of God, we await events.
>
> "Science doesn't have to question illusions, fairy-tales or anything
> unobserved and unobservable."
>
> Very very good, therein you expose the very failure of science to be
> able to address the question of God.
"How is this a failure ? Science doesn't either address the question of the
Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other chimera came out of the human
imagination."
type teas.
We can look to computer science. They have a dictum, garbage in garbage
out. In the case of the enjine of science, no information in, no
information out. On the question of God, there it stands absolutely mute.
> Without observable information to evaluate, the enjine of science
> stands absolutely mute on this question.
>
> So when those who declare that God can not exist because of what
> science does/has done, they are speaking from a point of faith alone
> in their theology.
"No, science only says that after centuries of developing more and more
accurate theories and observing more and more phenomena with more and more
accuracy, no observation or experience has *never* opened the possibility
of the intervention of any supernatural being; in other words everything in
nature, including the human mind and consciousness, are natural. As for the
origin of the Big Bang, the question is moot: the Big Band IS the origin,
there's no "before": time starts at and with the Big Bang."
the above. The enjine of science stands absolutely mute on the question.
The very very best that idea holds is that for the limited amount of what
we know can be discussed without reference to the supernatural. It does
not exclude the supernatural. After each new observation and theory we can
say, "ah, so that is how God did/does it".
"For the irrelevance of questions like "Where is the universe ?" or "When
did it start ?" read Wittgenstein."
Evoking authority is the poorest form of evidence.
> The assumed support of science evaporates like mist in the heat of
> the sun of truth.
"Your failed "logic" based on lack of proper education and irrational
belief empties this last sentence of any content and pertinence."
science as discussed thus far. And of the continued lack of "proof" you
were asked to provide in support of your assertion of the power of science
to do same. I take it as additional confirmation that your theology is
firmly based in faith alone.
"science man"
Jun 4, 2012, 12:29:30 PM6/4/12
to
>> So when those who declare that God can not exist because of what
>> science does/has done, they are speaking from a point of faith
>> alone in their theology. The assumed support of science
>> evaporates like mist in the heat of the sun of truth.
>
> They are also reveling that they too are philosophical materialists.
"Matter is an abstraction. Quantum physics assumes that the core of reality
is information, hence the process of creation (or novelty, or negative
entropy) is inherent to the universe at physical level. Read Ilya Prigogine
(Chemistry Nobel Prize)."
Smile, how more philosophical can one get? The conclusion is not science
>> science does/has done, they are speaking from a point of faith
>> alone in their theology. The assumed support of science
>> evaporates like mist in the heat of the sun of truth.
>
> They are also reveling that they too are philosophical materialists.
"Matter is an abstraction. Quantum physics assumes that the core of reality
is information, hence the process of creation (or novelty, or negative
entropy) is inherent to the universe at physical level. Read Ilya Prigogine
(Chemistry Nobel Prize)."
and i suspect not of the author mentioned either. I know his theory of
information.
> Only that which they can see or conceive, is real.
"No, it's the other way: if a phenomenon contradicts a theory, then this
theory becomes obsolete and the logical failure it was based on must be
identified and corrected in order to present a new theory that takes this
phenomenon into account at scientific level, ie the theory must be able to
predict new occurrences of this phenomenon while retaining or enhancing the
level of predictability of the previously observed and described
phenomena."
All of what you outline must at all points be tied to observation of the
material cosmos or it is not science.
That is science broadly expressed and by your own efforts can not address
the question of God. Using the above, what evidence even in principle can
be used for that question in that process? What observations of the
material cosmos can be used?
nickk - not the imposter
Jun 4, 2012, 1:17:27 PM6/4/12
to
Can that which is TRUE become archaic?
"science man"
Jun 4, 2012, 6:13:26 PM6/4/12
to
"Can that which is TRUE become archaic?"
In the sense of orthodox theology, no.
In the sense of science to which this is a response to a thread about same,
no.
There is no "truth" in science. There is only the best current consensus
about which account best fits the current observed information. It is in
almost constant flux.
Given that, the history of science is littered by the shells of Archaic
accounts abandoned as new information or ways of understanding it presented
themselves.
RVG
May 26, 2012, 6:22:22 PM5/26/12
to
Le 26/05/2012 18:36, JamesD a écrit :
> Is Orthodoxy Archaic?
>
Well, mythology is, like everything pre-scientific (or pre-critic in the
philosophical sense), a fossil.
It's obvious that nobody today who is aware of the current state of
scientific knowledge (especially neurosciences, like neuroplasticity
that is being discovered) can find more than some metaphors in the
biblical fables.
It's a case of either/or. Either the Bible is true and science is false,
then prove it; or it's the other way. You can't have both.
> Is Orthodoxy Archaic?
>
Well, mythology is, like everything pre-scientific (or pre-critic in the
philosophical sense), a fossil.
It's obvious that nobody today who is aware of the current state of
scientific knowledge (especially neurosciences, like neuroplasticity
that is being discovered) can find more than some metaphors in the
biblical fables.
It's a case of either/or. Either the Bible is true and science is false,
then prove it; or it's the other way. You can't have both.
Unknown
May 26, 2012, 6:34:51 PM5/26/12
to
"It's obvious that nobody today who is aware of the current state of
scientific knowledge (especially neurosciences, like neuroplasticity that
is being discovered) can find more than some metaphors in the biblical
fables. It's a case of either/or. Either the Bible is true and science is
false, then prove it; or it's the other way. You can't have both."
Those who know the state of science today would not agree. I follow it
closely, I was trained to use it.
closely, I was trained to use it.
There is nothing in neuroscience that can speak to the points you raise.
Any "evidence" to the contrary gladly entertained.
Any "evidence" to the contrary gladly entertained.
RVG
May 26, 2012, 6:43:54 PM5/26/12
to
Le 27/05/2012 00:34, "science man" a écrit :
> "It's obvious that nobody today who is aware of the current state of
> scientific knowledge (especially neurosciences, like
> neuroplasticity that is being discovered) can find more than some
> metaphors in the biblical fables. It's a case of either/or. Either
> the Bible is true and science is false, then prove it; or it's the
> other way. You can't have both."
>
> Those who know the state of science today would not agree. I follow
> it closely, I was trained to use it.
>
I doubt it.
> scientific knowledge (especially neurosciences, like
> neuroplasticity that is being discovered) can find more than some
> metaphors in the biblical fables. It's a case of either/or. Either
> the Bible is true and science is false, then prove it; or it's the
> other way. You can't have both."
>
> Those who know the state of science today would not agree. I follow
> it closely, I was trained to use it.
>
> There is nothing in neuroscience that can speak to the points you
> raise. Any "evidence" to the contrary gladly entertained.
>
Neuroscience explains all the mystical phenomena. Incompleteness of the
individual (hence death) explains empathy and most of the so-called
miracles come from playing the empathy chord very loudly.
So far I've seen nothing more miraculous than a couple of Arctic sterns
flying pole to pole and finding both their nests every year.
If simple birds can do that, then certainly the human brain is capable
of much more astonishing - but still natural - things.
individual (hence death) explains empathy and most of the so-called
miracles come from playing the empathy chord very loudly.
So far I've seen nothing more miraculous than a couple of Arctic sterns
flying pole to pole and finding both their nests every year.
If simple birds can do that, then certainly the human brain is capable
of much more astonishing - but still natural - things.
> It is a now tired false dichotomy, that science and religion thing.
> It is a crutch for those who have decided on faith to not believe.
> That is the real yes or no question and there is nothing in science
> to help, nothing.
>
> It is a crutch for those who have decided on faith to not believe.
> That is the real yes or no question and there is nothing in science
> to help, nothing.
>
You mean that Darwin, Einstein and Noah's Ark are compatible ? Or that
the tale of the woman eating from a magic tree after listening to a
talking snake, thus causing the mortality of all the living beings on
earth, is as true as molecular biology and genetics ?
the tale of the woman eating from a magic tree after listening to a
talking snake, thus causing the mortality of all the living beings on
earth, is as true as molecular biology and genetics ?
Unknown
May 26, 2012, 8:09:25 PM5/26/12
to
> "It's obvious that nobody today who is aware of the current state of
> scientific knowledge (especially neurosciences, like
> neuroplasticity that is being discovered) can find more than some
> metaphors in the biblical fables. It's a case of either/or. Either
> the Bible is true and science is false, then prove it; or it's the
> other way. You can't have both."
>
> Those who know the state of science today would not agree. I follow
> it closely, I was trained to use it.
>
I doubt it.
> There is nothing in neuroscience that can speak to the points you
> raise. Any "evidence" to the contrary gladly entertained.
"Neuroscience explains all the mystical phenomena. Incompleteness of the
individual (hence death) explains empathy and most of the so-called
miracles come from playing the empathy chord very loudly. So far I've seen
nothing more miraculous than a couple of Arctic sterns flying pole to pole
and finding both their nests every year. If simple birds can do that, then
certainly the human brain is capable of much more astonishing - but still
natural - things."
Sorry, no evidence there to support your claim nor contrary to Christian
> scientific knowledge (especially neurosciences, like
> neuroplasticity that is being discovered) can find more than some
> metaphors in the biblical fables. It's a case of either/or. Either
> the Bible is true and science is false, then prove it; or it's the
> other way. You can't have both."
>
> Those who know the state of science today would not agree. I follow
> it closely, I was trained to use it.
>
I doubt it.
> There is nothing in neuroscience that can speak to the points you
> raise. Any "evidence" to the contrary gladly entertained.
"Neuroscience explains all the mystical phenomena. Incompleteness of the
individual (hence death) explains empathy and most of the so-called
miracles come from playing the empathy chord very loudly. So far I've seen
nothing more miraculous than a couple of Arctic sterns flying pole to pole
and finding both their nests every year. If simple birds can do that, then
certainly the human brain is capable of much more astonishing - but still
natural - things."
views about God. . Please tell us you are not going to go off on a hindu
tangent again.
> It is a crutch for those who have decided on faith to not believe.
> That is the real yes or no question and there is nothing in science
> to help, nothing.
"You mean that Darwin, Einstein and Noah's Ark are compatible ? Or that the
tale of the woman eating from a magic tree after listening to a talking
snake, thus causing the mortality of all the living beings on earth, is as
true as molecular biology and genetics ?"
speak are not expected to be scientific observations but to teach about
spiritual themes.
Darwin is quite another matter. In short he gave an account of how God
created biological diversity over time.
Einstein was by many accounts a theist. But he also helped describe
creation. He is said to have thought that we can in science regarding the
exploration of the cosmos "know the mind of God".
There is no "truth" in science. It has at any time an account which to
understand observations is always contingent and subject to change. As the
observed information changes the account changes. It has changed
accordingly in history and will continue to do so.
one but salves the wounds of those who by faith have decided not to accept
the divine.
RVG
May 27, 2012, 6:59:14 AM5/27/12
to
> I hope you find comfort and acceptance in your science and scientific
> ideas, Vassili.
> ideas, Vassili.
They're not mine, you see: science is *objective* and everything is
proved, right or wrong.
proved, right or wrong.
> I know that I find comfort in what you consider fables and myth.
I don't doubt it, that's why those who invented them to hypnotize the
masses and gain total control on them have written them. Fables and
fairy-tales are soothing and comforting, like opiates. And opium is good
when used at certain moments for specific reasons: we all need crutches
one day or another when we can't walk on our own.
But when we come back to health, we see the crutches like the young
adolescent sees his child toys: he knows it's time for him to deal with
reality instead of cartoonish representations.
> Good luck. You're going to need it.
was a completely de facto proven real being. Or is he not ?
Name me *one* proven fact among the major events told in the Bible.
RVG
May 27, 2012, 7:03:35 AM5/27/12
to
angels, etc.) ?
> Darwin is quite another matter. In short he gave an account of how God
> created biological diversity over time.
>
him, that nature creates diversity through evolution without any
supernatural power.
> Einstein was by many accounts a theist.
science, like Newton's and Spinoza's.
> But he also helped describe
> creation. He is said to have thought that we can in science regarding the
> exploration of the cosmos "know the mind of God".
>
> There is no "truth" in science. It has at any time an account which to
> understand observations is always contingent and subject to change. As the
> observed information changes the account changes. It has changed
> accordingly in history and will continue to do so.
>
Yes, that's what makes it true: its method.
Nothing *else* is true because nothing else is proven.
The Bible is a fairytale just like astrology and all the pre-scientific
crap like alchemy, etc.
Nothing *else* is true because nothing else is proven.
The Bible is a fairytale just like astrology and all the pre-scientific
crap like alchemy, etc.
> So there lies the crutch. The science and religion dichotomy is a false
> one but salves the wounds of those who by faith have decided not to accept
> the divine.
>
This sentence is meaningless.
> one but salves the wounds of those who by faith have decided not to accept
> the divine.
>
JamesD
May 27, 2012, 9:32:23 AM5/27/12
to
pointedly what I suspect is going on with you (and has been going on
now for some time). You have fallen into despair. You have lost hope
and that, the monks tell us, is the greatest sin and it is also the
one sin that can ultimately be our total downfall from which there is
no salvation. I'm not going to play the psychiatrist since I don't have
the credentials. And I'm not going to match wits with you because I
believe you are far more intelligent. And lastly, I'm going to leave
you until you are willing to recognize the truth of what I've said and
agreed to repent of this sin by seeking a priest. You need to do this
for yourself. No one here can do it for you. The longer you remain in
this condition, the more difficult it will be to ever extract yourself
from it. I don't think I'm telling you anything you don't already know.
But you need to be reminded of it and faced with it. I will promise one
thing: to pray for you.
RVG
May 27, 2012, 11:20:01 AM5/27/12
to
supernatural superguy in the sky (or three: the old guy, the younger guy
on a stick and a pigeon).
> You have lost hope
> and that, the monks tell us, is the greatest sin and it is also the
> one sin that can ultimately be our total downfall from which there is
> no salvation.
talking snake ?
> I'm not going to play the psychiatrist since I don't have
> the credentials.
> And I'm not going to match wits with you because I
> believe you are far more intelligent. And lastly, I'm going to leave
> you until you are willing to recognize the truth of what I've said and
> agreed to repent of this sin by seeking a priest.
> You need to do this
> for yourself. No one here can do it for you. The longer you remain in
> this condition, the more difficult it will be to ever extract yourself
> from it. I don't think I'm telling you anything you don't already know.
> But you need to be reminded of it and faced with it. I will promise one
> thing: to pray for you.
RVG
May 27, 2012, 4:46:26 PM5/27/12
to
Le 27/05/2012 22:16, JamesD a écrit :
plain good old reason as used by Socrates, Plato, Aristotles and
Montesquieu.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lrmk39hbAL1r0go7xo1_500.jpg
Montesquieu.
JamesD
May 27, 2012, 11:23:31 PM5/27/12
to
On 5/27/2012 1:46 PM, RVG wrote:
> Le 27/05/2012 22:16, JamesD a écrit :
>> Sin is a myth? Really? Then stop whining about your condition at the
>> hands of these government officials. What they are doing is not
>> sinful. They are doing it because they can. They have the power and
>> you do not. There is no right or wrong in their actions,
>> unfortunately for you.
>
> Ever heard of justice and right ? Nothing involving retarded myths, just
> plain good old reason as used by Socrates, Plato, Aristotles and
> Montesquieu.
>
> https://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lrmk39hbAL1r0go7xo1_500.jpg
>
Whose justice? Whose right? Who has the authority to declare what is
> Le 27/05/2012 22:16, JamesD a écrit :
>> Sin is a myth? Really? Then stop whining about your condition at the
>> hands of these government officials. What they are doing is not
>> sinful. They are doing it because they can. They have the power and
>> you do not. There is no right or wrong in their actions,
>> unfortunately for you.
>
> Ever heard of justice and right ? Nothing involving retarded myths, just
> plain good old reason as used by Socrates, Plato, Aristotles and
> Montesquieu.
>
> https://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lrmk39hbAL1r0go7xo1_500.jpg
>
and what is not just and right? Just because a few Greek philosophers
declared what they believed to be certain truths, does not necessarily
mean that their version of truth is correct. His teachings only brought
him accusers, a trial and death. So...evidently his version of ethics...
of right and wrong, did not meet with universal approval and in the
end, those with power ruled the day. Who really cares about Plato,
Socrates and Aristotle? On the other hand, no one but no one has changed
the world like Jesus Christ. I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God
and I could care less what disgruntled atheists like yourself think on
the subject. That's your loss and I feel badly for you but obviously
you want to wrap yourself in bitterness and unbelief so there's not
much I can do. We've offered options and you've deflected every one.
We've offered prayers and you've told us they're based upon mythic
figures so we're not to bother.
pyotr filipivich
May 28, 2012, 1:27:10 AM5/28/12
to
RVG <not....@themoment.invalid.org> on Sun, 27 May 2012 22:46:26
+0200 typed in alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox the following:
+0200 typed in alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox the following:
>Le 27/05/2012 22:16, JamesD a écrit :
>> Sin is a myth? Really? Then stop whining about your condition at the
>> hands of these government officials. What they are doing is not
>> sinful. They are doing it because they can. They have the power and
>> you do not. There is no right or wrong in their actions,
>> unfortunately for you.
>
>Ever heard of justice and right ?
>> Sin is a myth? Really? Then stop whining about your condition at the
>> hands of these government officials. What they are doing is not
>> sinful. They are doing it because they can. They have the power and
>> you do not. There is no right or wrong in their actions,
>> unfortunately for you.
>
>Ever heard of justice and right ?
What has that got to do with it?
>Nothing involving retarded myths, just
>plain good old reason as used by Socrates, Plato, Aristotles and
>Montesquieu.
>plain good old reason as used by Socrates, Plato, Aristotles and
>Montesquieu.
Well, that follows, if everyone agrees that a) "justice" and
"right" are useful and B) that Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and
Montesquieu should be considered authoritative. Why not Jean-Paul
Sartre, Iosif V. Dzhugashvili, Donatien A. François or Saloth Sar?
"right" are useful and B) that Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and
Montesquieu should be considered authoritative. Why not Jean-Paul
You picks your authorities, and you go with them.
Unknown
May 28, 2012, 1:05:26 PM5/28/12
to
"They're not mine, you see: science is *objective* and everything is
proved, right or wrong."
absolutely mute.
If you can not then your view of God is by faith only, just like all of us.
If you can not then grasping science in place of God is an empty crutch.
Unknown
May 28, 2012, 1:18:13 PM5/28/12
to
> There is no "truth" in science. It has at any time an account which to
> understand observations is always contingent and subject to change. As
the
> observed information changes the account changes. It has changed
> accordingly in history and will continue to do so.
>
"Yes, that's what makes it true: its method. Nothing *else* is true because
nothing else is proven. The Bible is a fairytale just like astrology and
all the pre-scientific crap like alchemy, etc."
So your version of "truth" is an ever changing target? Hardly seems worthy
> understand observations is always contingent and subject to change. As
the
> observed information changes the account changes. It has changed
> accordingly in history and will continue to do so.
>
"Yes, that's what makes it true: its method. Nothing *else* is true because
nothing else is proven. The Bible is a fairytale just like astrology and
all the pre-scientific crap like alchemy, etc."
of the idea. Best to abandon "truth" and adopt "today's consensus in
science".
It seems to me this is part of the crutch you have made of science.
It has been observed that the more we know, as in science, the more we know
what there is yet to know. That means ignorance is expanding at an
exponential rate. Thus your non-truth "truth" produces only ignorance, no?
In another post in this same thread I asked you to apply science to the
question of God, we await events. By it we will know the potential and
limitations of science to answer such questions.
nickk - not the imposter
May 28, 2012, 2:45:27 PM5/28/12
to
The Truth is the Truth is the Truth - it never changes. If you refer
to externals, do you think Jesus will appear in a business suit?
pyotr filipivich
May 28, 2012, 3:28:06 PM5/28/12
to
JamesD <canadago...@gmail.com> on Sat, 26 May 2012 09:36:03 -0700
(PDT) typed in alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox the following:
>
>"The Orthodox Church is obedient to all authorities including anti-Christian ones."
>
>Often I have come across the opinion that the current state of the Orthodox Church in the USSR has its roots in the Byzantine tradition of "symphony" (consonance). However, it is a gross oversimplification lo consider "symphony" as submission of the Church to the will of emperors. The aim of "symphony" was to complement the civic power of emperors with the spiritual power of the Church and vice versa. So the Church was in principle submissive to emperors just as emperors were submissive to the Church, although in practice this ideal consonance was often disrupted in Byzantium and later also in Russia.
>
> The main difference between Byzantine emperors and Soviet rulers is that the former were Christian (at least nominally) while the latter were supposed to be anti-Christian. From this point of view it is senseless to speak of any 'symphony' in the Soviet Union, even in the epoch of perestroika. This has been best of all illustrated by the well known persecution of Orthodox Christians. Individual Christians and even leaders of the Church may apparently be obedient to anti-Christian authorities, but the Orthodox Church is ultimately obedient only to Christ.
Even as Christians we are to be obedient to not just the Holy
Church and her canons, but the laws of the land we live in (in as much
as we can without violating the Canons). That includes when Orthodox
faithful found themselves ruled by Atheists. Just because the
government was officially anti-Christianity, that did not relieve The
Orthodox from obedience to the traffic laws.
Nor does the "apostasy" of the West, relieve us from obedience to
traffic (and other) laws, today
tschus
pyotr
(PDT) typed in alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox the following:
>
>"The Orthodox Church is obedient to all authorities including anti-Christian ones."
>
>Often I have come across the opinion that the current state of the Orthodox Church in the USSR has its roots in the Byzantine tradition of "symphony" (consonance). However, it is a gross oversimplification lo consider "symphony" as submission of the Church to the will of emperors. The aim of "symphony" was to complement the civic power of emperors with the spiritual power of the Church and vice versa. So the Church was in principle submissive to emperors just as emperors were submissive to the Church, although in practice this ideal consonance was often disrupted in Byzantium and later also in Russia.
>
> The main difference between Byzantine emperors and Soviet rulers is that the former were Christian (at least nominally) while the latter were supposed to be anti-Christian. From this point of view it is senseless to speak of any 'symphony' in the Soviet Union, even in the epoch of perestroika. This has been best of all illustrated by the well known persecution of Orthodox Christians. Individual Christians and even leaders of the Church may apparently be obedient to anti-Christian authorities, but the Orthodox Church is ultimately obedient only to Christ.
Even as Christians we are to be obedient to not just the Holy
Church and her canons, but the laws of the land we live in (in as much
as we can without violating the Canons). That includes when Orthodox
faithful found themselves ruled by Atheists. Just because the
government was officially anti-Christianity, that did not relieve The
Orthodox from obedience to the traffic laws.
Nor does the "apostasy" of the West, relieve us from obedience to
traffic (and other) laws, today
tschus
pyotr
RVG
Jun 1, 2012, 6:15:05 AM6/1/12
to
Le 28/05/2012 05:23, JamesD a écrit :
> On 5/27/2012 1:46 PM, RVG wrote:
>> Le 27/05/2012 22:16, JamesD a écrit :
>>> Sin is a myth? Really? Then stop whining about your condition at
>>> the hands of these government officials. What they are doing is
>>> not sinful. They are doing it because they can. They have the
>>> power and you do not. There is no right or wrong in their
>>> actions, unfortunately for you.
>>
>> Ever heard of justice and right ? Nothing involving retarded
>> myths, just plain good old reason as used by Socrates, Plato,
>> Aristotles and Montesquieu.
>>
>> https://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lrmk39hbAL1r0go7xo1_500.jpg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Whose justice? Whose right? Who has the authority to declare what is
> and what is not just and right?
You, me. It's just a matter of common moral sense and reason.
> On 5/27/2012 1:46 PM, RVG wrote:
>> Le 27/05/2012 22:16, JamesD a écrit :
>>> Sin is a myth? Really? Then stop whining about your condition at
>>> the hands of these government officials. What they are doing is
>>> not sinful. They are doing it because they can. They have the
>>> power and you do not. There is no right or wrong in their
>>> actions, unfortunately for you.
>>
>> Ever heard of justice and right ? Nothing involving retarded
>> myths, just plain good old reason as used by Socrates, Plato,
>> Aristotles and Montesquieu.
>>
>> https://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lrmk39hbAL1r0go7xo1_500.jpg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Whose justice? Whose right? Who has the authority to declare what is
> and what is not just and right?
> Just because a few Greek philosophers declared what they believed to
> be certain truths, does not necessarily mean that their version of
> truth is correct. His teachings only brought him accusers, a trial
> and death. So...evidently his version of ethics... of right and
> wrong, did not meet with universal approval and in the end, those
> with power ruled the day.
peoples of the known world of his time in the empire and even managed to
free the Jews from the captivity of Babylon. For that the Jews
considered *him* as the Messiah, calling him the Son of the Virgin and
the Beloved of God, although he was a warmongering bisexual.
> Who really cares about Plato, Socrates and Aristotle?
It's intelligence 101.
At least they'll teach you how to ask pertinent questions and how to
articulate problems so that you may point to the right direction and use
the proper tools to find, if possible, the correct answer.
> On the other hand, no one but no one has changed the world like
> Jesus Christ.
emperor decided to make him the new centre of the Zodiac wheel, the
world fell into the Dark Ages for many centuries, losing everything the
antique world had discovered until some Arab missionaries, out of zeal
and curiosity, dug those old texts, restored, copied and translated them
and rebuilt the civilization in Andalusia for a couple of centuries,
before they in turn fell into the same religious obscurantism - but,
thanks to the Jewish doctors (of medicine, not Torah) opened the way to
the European Renaissance.
> I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God
complete definition is meaningless and without content.
Also define every word used in these definition, like "creation" or
"spirit".
> and I could care less what disgruntled atheists like yourself think
> on the subject. That's your loss and I feel badly for you but
> obviously you want to wrap yourself in bitterness and unbelief so
> there's not much I can do. We've offered options and you've
> deflected every one. We've offered prayers and you've told us they're
> based upon mythic figures so we're not to bother.
especially using the instrument of intelligence called logic, therefore
you react on an emotional level like a child when you tell him that
Santa Claus is really Uncle Ted with a cotton beard and that the
presents are bought at the store by mummy and daddy.
There may be a divine reality, but we first must give a clear an
complete definition of the notion of divinity.
Once this is done, we must try to establish a distinction between the
divine and the whole of the universe in order to accredit the notion
that there may be a divine creator.
This while knowing that the universe is not *at all* what the writers of
the biblical books thought it was, completing there lack of science by
resorting to pleasant myths that served a precise agenda to the
exclusive benefit of the clerical caste of Israel.
RVG
Jun 1, 2012, 6:20:33 AM6/1/12
to
Le 28/05/2012 07:27, pyotr filipivich a écrit :
> RVG<not....@themoment.invalid.org> on Sun, 27 May 2012 22:46:26
> +0200 typed in alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox the following:
>> Le 27/05/2012 22:16, JamesD a écrit :
>>> Sin is a myth? Really? Then stop whining about your condition at
>>> the hands of these government officials. What they are doing is
>>> not sinful. They are doing it because they can. They have the
>>> power and you do not. There is no right or wrong in their
>>> actions, unfortunately for you.
>>
>> Ever heard of justice and right ?
>
> What has that got to do with it?
>> Nothing involving retarded myths, just plain good old reason as
>> used by Socrates, Plato, Aristotles and Montesquieu.
>
> Well, that follows, if everyone agrees that a) "justice" and "right"
> are useful and B) that Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Montesquieu
> should be considered authoritative. Why not Jean-Paul Sartre,
> +0200 typed in alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox the following:
>> Le 27/05/2012 22:16, JamesD a écrit :
>>> Sin is a myth? Really? Then stop whining about your condition at
>>> the hands of these government officials. What they are doing is
>>> not sinful. They are doing it because they can. They have the
>>> power and you do not. There is no right or wrong in their
>>> actions, unfortunately for you.
>>
>> Ever heard of justice and right ?
>
> What has that got to do with it?
>> Nothing involving retarded myths, just plain good old reason as
>> used by Socrates, Plato, Aristotles and Montesquieu.
>
> Well, that follows, if everyone agrees that a) "justice" and "right"
> are useful and B) that Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Montesquieu
> should be considered authoritative. Why not Jean-Paul Sartre,
Sartre is a valid philosopher. Some of his ideas inspired French laws
passed by the Resistance after the war.
passed by the Resistance after the war.
> Iosif V. Dzhugashvili, Donatien A. François or Saloth Sar?
>
>
Stalin OK, but who are the others ?
> You picks your authorities, and you go with them.
The authority is the clear and distinct idea, not any given individual.
Until further proven, Jesus of Nazareth, *if* he even existed (there is
no material proof at all), only died for "his" sin: loving everybody
like himself.
no material proof at all), only died for "his" sin: loving everybody
like himself.
Feel free to die for me, or better: give your life for your worst enemy.
Are you ready to face you murderer and embrace him wholeheartedly while
he'll stab you to death ?
If not, you're not a Christian, just one of these faggots who repeat
"Lord ! Lord !" all day long and to whom Jesus said: "I don't know you."
Are you ready to face you murderer and embrace him wholeheartedly while
he'll stab you to death ?
If not, you're not a Christian, just one of these faggots who repeat
"Lord ! Lord !" all day long and to whom Jesus said: "I don't know you."
JamesD
Jun 3, 2012, 11:05:44 PM6/3/12
to
me. I KNOW what He has done for me. I KNOW from experience that HE
has heard me when I cried out to Him. I don't need to prove this to
you nor do I have any desire to do so. You believe in your science.
Good for you. Wrap yourself in your science and be filled and
warmed, just as I am in the love of Jesus Christ and the blessedness
of His Church. Vassili, for someone talking about hopelessness,
despair and possibly even suicide, your science doesn't seem to
be providing any definitive answers for you. I'll pray for you.
0 new messages