At the dawn of the post-ancient epoch, between antiquity and modernity, truth was synonymous with Christ's Body, the Old Testament was a shadow of the truth (Collosians 2:17), the Gospels were an icon of the truth. One's attitude toward the truth would be reflected in one's attitude toward Christ and Scripture. Then the Reformation came, the and the old dispute between Pharisees and Sadducees was revived; the Pharisees held that the Scripture was part of Sacred Tradition, and not the entirety of it (for instance, the Resurrection of the Dead was Sacred Tradition not covered by Scripture), and that Scripture itself doesn't just need to be transmitted, but also the precise *meaning* of Scripture. Sadducees, by contrast, said there was not Sacred Tradition, but Scripture alone was what mattered, and its meaning is its face value (for instance, the Sadducees held that "an eye for an eye" meant the offender had to be blinded in one eye, whereas the Pharisees said it meant the offender had to pay the financial equivalent). Christ affirmed the Pharisee position as the one passed down by Moses (Matthew 23:2). This scenario was repeated all over again during the Reformation, but a new element was introduced here: *personal* interpretation, which was strictly prohibited by the Bible (2 Peter 1:20--the word used for "personal" or "private" or "own" is ἰδίας, the genitive case of ἴδιος (idios), source of the word "idiot"). The advent of sola scriptura lead to the roots of scientism on one hand (truth is not expressed philosophically or poetically or artistically, but only through legalisms--a contradiction of 2 Corinthians 3:6), and existentialism nihilism (meaning is strictly personal, not inherent in the truth).
With modernity, truth ceased to be considered synomous with Christ, but it held the legacy of Renaissance humanism: God is a creator of natural world, and it therefore should be studying as the truth as much as the Bible. So instead the natural world itself was seen as the truth, and the Reformation legacy endured, creating eventually both scientism and existentialism nihilism. Now existential nihilism is very different from Christian existentialism--a good example of the latter is Notes from Underground, here meaning is not something that exists solely by one's creation, but is a constant truth, but one which have the free will to not make peace with. Existentialism nihilism, on the other hand, applied the Reformation attitude toward the Bible toward the secular truth: there is no innate meaning, meaning is just a matter of individual conception. But what does this really lead to? Christianity sees God as the ultimate value, from which all others spring, like colors from a prism. But existentialism nihilism sees no objective vale and meaning which others are refracted from, all meanings are just independent and equally truth; so the truth that they all share in is what happens when all colors are mixed together: darkness. There is no meaning, there is purpose, there is no point, there is only chaos (from Greek for "abyss"). Total relativism means each truth is true so far as it partakes of the ultimate truth, which is, paradoxically, nothing.
Orthodox reading list and FAQ for atheists, Jews, Catholics, Protestants and Muslims: http://pastebin.com/bN1ujq2x
We have an Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, and a Pope of Alexandria, but they cannot be compared to the Roman Pope because their positions are purely honorary, they cannot define dogma or morals on their own.
>thread is entitled "the substance of nihilism"
>the joker pic is a bit much but I've made lazy image OP choices in the past too, okay, this might be a cool thread, after all, as we all know nihilism is in fact the endgame of history
>words words words okay fine a history of Christianity very good
>scroll down a bit and find that Orthodicks and Child Rapers are having a My Dad Can Beat Up Your Dad conversation
>all of these idiot fucking people in this thread seem to maintain a serious conversation about religion vis a vis its Historicity as if that is a vindication of themselves (it isn't)
I want my money back! I demand to speak to your false Christ or your false God, whoever's above you!
That doesn't seem reasonable.
I don't see why an infinite god would demand such petty things.
Especially suspicious since we are not even really supposed to be able to ask him, he have to trust the middleman to tell us what he supposedly thinks.
He came down as man and told us what he thinks, it's just passed on.
The reason ritual is so important is because the spiritual and the material are not mutually exclusive, they are intersecting dimensions, and a spiritual Sacrament intersects with its material experience.
Well I don't find that very convincing.
If you forced me to choose between "Christian existentialism" (which apparently requires constant Orthodoxy rituals) and "existentialism nihilism", I'd pick the latter simply because it seems less arbitrary.
But I don't think it's that binary though, you only consider it so because of this special category where "Christianity sees God as the ultimate value". You could repeat this game with any concept as the "ultimate value".
>Christianity sees God as the ultimate value, from which all others spring, like colors from a prism. But existentialism nihilism sees no objective vale and meaning which others are refracted from, all meanings are just independent and equally truth; so the truth that they all share in is what happens when all colors are mixed together: darkness. There is no meaning, there is purpose, there is no point, there is only chaos (from Greek for "abyss"). Total relativism means each truth is true so far as it partakes of the ultimate truth, which is, paradoxically, nothing.
You can be a contrarian or instigator without being an atheist.
I just think you're biased binary model "Christ = Truth" leads you to label nonchristians as your philosophical opposites. I don't blame you, you are pretty much obligated to take that position. But it's both predictable and also easily dismissed, all I have to do is not agree to your premise and there is nowhere for us to go.
Consider whether are looks more beautiful when there is meaning, purpose and point, or when the aesthetics are JUST
I have a prism perspective. Different colors are not the "opposite" of light, so to speak. Darkness is, but in reality it's a zero, not a negative., so not the opposite of positive.
>edginess is atheism taken to its logical conclusion..
Because the Apostles all told us Christ is risen and were willing to be ostracized and die for it. This is distinct from other cults in two aspects
1: They were all extremely skeptical at first when told be female witnesses
2: It wasn't just a single cult leader telling them he saw Christ Resurrected, but a number of people who had individual and group experiences and interacted with Christ, in CONJUNCTION with 1, which makes the idea of delusion highly unlikely.
The cult of Mithras had adherents who believed in their chosen deity supernatural power, were persecuted brutally, and who conducted many rituals that created a unified, single experience.
Why should I be an Orthodox instead of a Mithraist?
God created reality, I hold that as supreme.
You might take a Satanic line of argument here and said God is an inferior deity and Satan created the world, but that can't dissuade me from the God who is love, since I do not see any sustaining force higher than love.
Why can't you be honest and say that you hold the Christian God as the Truth God because you have faith in such?
Trying to rationalize these weak arguments and even admitting an heresy such as Gnosticism being fine is just pitiful.
His adherents left behind extensive rock carvings of his miraculous birth and heroic deeds. It's also important that not only was there no cult leader telling them about his, but a number of people who had individual and group experiences interacted with Mithras, which makes the idea of delusion highly unlikely.
>but a new element was introduced here: *personal* interpretation
reformation era sola scriptura isn't this. what you're describing is a modern american idea.
traditional sola scriptura is technically a prima scriptura doctrine, where tradition is only dispensed of if it contradicts scripture.
Justification by faith alone is pretty clearly personal interpretation, since scripture says, "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." The only way you can get around that is through interpretation, because if you read it at face value, it says man is not justified by faith alone.
>Ulansey holds that "Mithraism declined with the rise to power of Christianity, until the beginning of the fifth century, when Christianity became strong enough to exterminate by force rival religions such as Mithraism." According to Speidel, Christians fought fiercely with this feared enemy and suppressed it during the 4th century. Some Mithraic sanctuaries were destroyed and religion was no longer a matter of personal choice. According to Luther H. Martin, Roman Mithraism came to an end with the anti-pagan decrees of the Christian emperor Theodosius during the last decade of the 4th century.
If there were sources, you guys probably flushed it down the drain.
Does God's existence actually depend on there being human beings alive who worship him?
Do churches and religions create and sustain the belief in their respective gods? What about mutually exclusive religions?
Does the success of Islam or Scientology to spread their influence validate their beliefs?
im asking for a technical definition in orthodoxy, not a colloquial one. but if you dont know of such a definition, thats fine. like how do i know when ive crossed the line over to proselytizing "officially" so to speak?
We don't look at theology in terms of beginner/advanced. Only the actual experience ranges from beginner to advanced, and the more advanced you are, the more you garner from theology.
ok let me get a little more specific with my question: you've included it in your faq. does that mean it is suitable for someone who is not orthodox but wants to learn about orthodoxy?
ive read some of the orthodox church (mcguckin) but i had to leave it behind with other books when i moved.
You can read it, but you won't necessarily understand it properly, just like you won't necessarily understand the Bible properly. In other words, it's more proper to be Orthodox before you read it, because it's intended for Orthodox Christians, but reading it outside the Church is only as improper as reading the Bible outside the Church is.
You might want to read it, then, since you can understand it fairy well without being Orthodox. The Philokalia is a major theme in it, it's about the narrator applying what he learns for it.
The big discrepancy is that Jews are going to view the NT through the lens of the Hebrew Testament, whereas Christians are going to look at it exactly the other way around, with the New Testament as a lens.
I really wish there were more Jews who continued to identify strongly as Jews in Orthodoxy. Because one of the greatest obstacles to Jewish conversion, is that Jewish identity is so strongly tied up with Judaism that conversion, for the more religious ones, is akin to asking them to obliterate their cultural identity. If there were a "Hebrew Orthodox Church", I think it would help a lot with that. You don't have to eat Kosher, for instance, to be a Christian, but there's nothing wrong with that as a Church-specific discipline (Ethiopian Orthodox, for instance, came almost completely from Beta Israel, so they still keep Kosher and keep copies of the Tablets in the Holy of Holies, stuff like that).
You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!
Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bit to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!
>"Hebrew Orthodox Church"
it's a nice idea desu, but also keep in mind that jews come from a lot of different backgrounds. i would have a pretty hard time identifying with an ashkenazi community for example.
anyway, if it's a question of the truth i am willing to make sacrifices. thanks for the advice, i will look into that book.
Cultural rite in Orthodox Christianity strives toward pre-modernity. So "Hebrew Orthodox" would probably use ancient Jewish culture as a basis, and thus wouldn't be related to the divisions you're talking about. The artistic style of the iconography, for instance, might be based on the Dura-Europos art, the music would be a reconstruction of ancient Hebrew musical style, etc.
No problem. May God bless you and love be with you always.
"Canaanite" was basically a Hebrew put down for moneylender or merchant, similar to how we used "Jew" before the Holocaust made the use vulgar. The Jews removing the Canaanites is a premonition of Christ removing the moneychangers from the Temple (Christ is the real temple, and Christ's Body is the real Israel, after all). It's just put in terms desert tribes could relate to.
But it wasn't just "Canannites", it was also the Amalekites. The Bible is also explicit in including babes in arms.
Now call me crazy, but I have a hard time believing a bunch of ancient merchants, including their infants, were so evil that it warranted their destruction.
This also doesn't account for flooding the earth, torturing King David's child, or killing every first born son in egypt.
That's basically what total war was back then.
Killing David's child, Biblically, is about how God forgiving you of your sins, doesn't mean you get to keep their profits. For instance, if you rob someone and then get forgiveness, you can't keep the money.
The Flood, from a non-fundamentalist point of view, is seen as an allegory for Church as the Ark (if you're outside it, you might be saved, but it's better to be in it). This allegory comes the New Testament (1 Peter 3:20-22) .In a parallel fashion, the waters of God's love which are baptism can be seen as unpleasant, just as the light of his love can be seen as fire--it both cases, though, it might nonetheless ultimately save you (1 Corinthians 3:13-15)
Total war isn't honorable.
And you're basically saying God's torture, infanticide, and genocide is good because he said so. If you were being honest, you'd admit God is capable of hate and great evil.
>Total war isn't honorable.
Do you think honor is something objective?
>And you're basically saying God's torture, infanticide, and genocide is good because he said so. If you were being honest, you'd admit God is capable of hate and great evil.
All which the Old Testament talks about God doing, considered evil today, is only seen as evil because God told us what's evil and what's good.
>Do you think honor is something objective?
It's your job to justify any of his atrocities. I don't consider anyone willing to torture or massacre children and infants honorable.
>All which the Old Testament talks about God doing, considered evil today, is only seen as evil because God told us what's evil and what's good.
So god is evil because he said so.
>It's your job to justify any of his atrocities.
You'll have to give me your yardstick and your ten commandments.
>So god is evil because he said so.
God is portrayed in the OT, in terms we'd consider relatively evil today (compared to other deities of the time and place, he certainly wasn't), because those are the terms the ancient Habiru could wrap their heads around. That is what they feared. They didn't fear hurting God, they couldn't comprehend that.
>You'll have to give me your yardstick and your ten commandments.
It's pretty simple. If you kill any child or infant, let alone torture to prove a point, you are a tyrant and a monster. Your Ten Commandments are irrelevant since God very obviously considers himself above them.
>compared to other deities of the time and place, he certainly wasn't
The only thing God can't be directly accused of is rape, which while evil on it's own, doesn't negate other actions. Otherwise he's no different in methods or entitlement from any god in Greek Paganism.
I don't have Ten Commandments. I haven't been commanded nor do I ultimately have the power to command anyone to do anything.
I wasn't aware of Moloch, but the wiki gist is child sacrifice. You're saying God is against that, despite sending his only son to die on the cross? I guess killing every first born son isn't specifically a sacrifice, but is that a distinction which justifies anything?
Surely, seeing as how you have morality, you must have ten core, unbreakable rules.
God is Christ. The Father of God, the Son of God, and the Spirit of God, these are the Holy Trinity.
God's killing of infants has in fact the opposite point that child sacrifice does. In the OT, it illustrates God's power over life and death, a power that is *his alone* (Romans 12:19). That is. God is the only one who has the right to kill. The reason killing is so objectionable is because it is indirectly murdering God (Genesis 9:6). Whether or not God killed any infants is beside the point that he has the power and right to, which is the point of relating it to the ancient Hebrews.
>you must have ten core, unbreakable rules
That number could be far great or lesser than ten. There are things which I wouldn't consider good, but would do without guilt depending on the situation. Ultimately what I've never done and would never do is rape, enslave, or abuse animals. Those would have made nice Commandments, no?
>God is the only one who has the right to kill
>hether or not God killed any infants is beside the point that he has the power and right to
Because he said so. That where you and I will disagree on as good. Thank you for your time.
>That number could be far great or lesser than ten.
Just your ten core ones.
>Because he said so
Because he is constantly sustaining every atom of their existence every second. In order for them to die, he simply has to stop actively willing for them to live.