I've started to read Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives by Peter Bouteneff. It has been very good in covering the same material discussed in this video.
Vladika, when you say we were created in the "image and likeness" of God, does that mean physically (the body) as well as spiritually (the soul)? I have always assumed that Orthodox Christianity teaches that the likeness of God refers only to the soul. Therefore, the physical shell can have a myriad of forms (hue of skin, deformity, gender, etc).
I like the train. My last two years as an undergrad at Elmhurst College was spent in a dorm next to the tracks. It became quite pleasant after a while.
@ndzoko It is notable that the story is never mentioned in Hebrew Scripture, after the Creation Narrative, and it does not become significant until the New Testament. It may very well be, as many scholars assert, that the book of Genesis, up until Abraham, was added only after the Exile into Babylon. The era of Abraham is the first actually historical era in the book. The story about Paradise may not have existed in Hebrew literature until after the Exile.
@allsaintsmonastery It is also notable that "Adam" is not an actual name in Hebrew. It means "mankind". The word for just one man is "ish". Also, the Jewish Theologian Nachmanides said in the 13th century that what made Adam a true human was his soul and that there were other man like creatures without a soul. His contemporary Maimonides echoes this same sentiment in his "Guide for the perplexed" in the first part chapter 7. Thanks for the Video!
I have always been rather perplexed why Adam & Eve was so significant as the Old Testament is Jewish. Now I know that Jesus is claimed to be a Rabbi in origin yet I see a very stark difference between the God that Jesus teaches & the God of the Tanakh/Torah.
Now I feel a need to express my position on the Nicene Creed & that I feel it expresses a highly improbable event so you may understand where I am coming from. I also understand you do adopt this creed. >
> But setting aside that difference, I see the nature of western Christianity is heavily based on the Jewish texts & not on the words of Christ & I see Orthodox as more trying to understand the Jewish texts through the words of Christ.
That being said, at this stage I find no reason for Orthodoxy to read too much into Jewish texts other than the path that Jesus was ultimately fighting against & what got him pinned to a plank.
@MilitantPeaceist Oh that all Orthodox Christians, especially clergy, could actually live up to that command. We don't. There is still far to much hate and prejudice in all religions, and Christians have the least excuse for it because Christ taught so much the opposite.
@bossman103 The Orthodox Church has never had any notion of the doctrine of Original Guilt (Original Sin). The Orthodox understanding of The Ancestral Sin is that we have a proclivity for the misuse of our energies because of the separation from God that came about as a result of the actions of Adam and Eve.
Also in the Orthodox Church the icon of the Resurrection which is the most celebrated feast in the Church, is an icon of Christ freeing Adam and Eve from hell, so to say that their existence has no effect on the Orthodoxy's understanding of the Incarnation seems wrong. The Church Fathers all saw Adam as directly being related to the reason of Christ's Incarnation. One example of many is St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 23.
@divineflashes Of course. But you see, it is Evangelical Christians, not Orthodox Christians, who are asserting that Adam could not have existed. Remember, we are Orthodox, not Evangelicals.
@allsaintsmonastery Amen, Amen! Evangelical Christians place contradictions where there should be none. Christ's Incarnation is also based on contradiction, but in the way of the life-creating cross! As you would say, "Truth is Counter-Intuitive."
Paul's entire theology of the Incarnation is based off of Christ being the new Adam. Paul emphasizes this again and again throughout his epistles. How then can you say that whether Adam ever existed or not has absolutely no affect on the Orthodox understanding of salvation which you claim is based entirely from the Nativity of Christ and His Incarnation? I refer you to 1 Cor 15:21-22, 45-49 and Romans 5:12-15.
@divineflashes True. so it is quite interesting that it is Evangelicals who are denying that Adam was real, is it not?? This is pretty much the direction that Evangelical Protestantism is going with the new generation.
I thought it was more liberal Protestantism that was challenging Adam's historicity? Evangelical theology tends to take the Fall very seriously and promote Biblical inerrant. I tend to think of Evangelism as "Christian fundamentalism light," and fundamentalist churches have been known to teach creationism during services.
@tifforo1 There is solid and clear scientific reason to believe that the idea that all people descended from a single set of parents is quite impossible. It is certain that there were at least three distinct species of humans which interbred to form modern man. Of them, the Neandertal likely contributed the most to the violent nature. It is, in fact, professors in Fundamenalist institutions such as Trinity Western here in British Columbia, who are calling Adam into question.
@divineflashes well but, the name adam does not have to necessarily signify a single particular person, for example jacob was called israel, and so was the entire tribe of israel, in fact we have so many passages where God refers ro isreal as a single bride(hosea), and many other symbols, as in those days it was precisely how people were referred to,a single name would constitute a community, so in that sense it dosent neccesarily have to contradict st.paul
@paulomi123 Of course you are welcome to interpret however you wish, but what you are saying clearly goes against the teaching of every Church Father and St. Paul who says, "Wherefore as by ONE man sin entered into this world..." And: "For if by the offence of ONE, many died; much more the grace of God, and the gift, by the grace of ONE man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." Christ and Adam are both individual persons who represent humanity. The Theotokos redeems Eve as Christ frees Adam.
@divineflashes "(The Lord) was not averse to males, for he took the form of a male, nor to females, for of a female he was born. Besides, there is a great mystery here: that just as death comes to us through a woman, Life is born to us through a woman; that the devil, defeated, would be tormented by each nature, feminine and masculine, as he had taken delight in the defection of both" - St. Augustine
How do we view a number of the fathers who claim that through Adam's transgression, nature became corrupted and concequently all things now die? In addition, how do we view Christ's salvific defeat of death, if death prevailed over nature since the beginning, then was freed by Christ? The image of "The Second Adam" seems to be void of meaning by this as well as Christ "restoring all things".
@Sephentheptotomartyr I did not "confirm" the Evangelical position that Adam did not exist. I am only demonstrating the difference if teachings that would be amplified by the idea that Adam did not exist. So far as I know, there are no Orthodox scientist who agree with the Evangelicals.
@Sephentheptotomartyr I did not say that I agreed with the Evangelicals who assert that Adam did not actually exist. i only used their assertion to demonstrate the difference between the Traditional Christian doctrine and the Protestant doctrine.
@melamonastic The Old Testament is essentially a story of humanity. We each are Adam and Eve, and the temptation to accept a counterfeit instead of what God has given us is ever present, and a struggle that each one of us face daily.
your emminence I do have a problem in undestanding though ,why is it in the end of the creation narrative that God says if man stays in the garden of eden he would eat from the tree of life so we should drive him out, but why does God do that if man eventually had to gain life from Jesus Christ (tree of life) ,he could have gained life from the tree of life and defeated death there itself and freed himself??, its just my thought please correct....
its really revealing the fact that adam and eve were not created immortal, at first i was confused but after i read the writings of st.Ireneaus of lyon in his book against heresies he clearly mentions if adam and eve were immortal why would they have to eat , which really is an amazing point to ponder for all protestants
Could you tell me please how someone who is an Orthodox Christian would answer this questions: Why did Jesus have to die?
Just out of curiosity whereabouts is your monastery? I know the Fraser Valley quite well but am not certain as to your location. Is it open to visitors?
Very thoughtful video sir ((I am not sure how to address you?). My wife and I have been talking a lot about it since I first shared it with her. Thanks.
@MusingsFromTheJohn We are just East of Mission, at the village of Dewdney. There is a map at (we are not allowed to give web addresses in these reply boxes, in proper format. We welcome visitors, but you should telephone ahead of time . Why did Christ die will be discussed on part 2 of this bradcast Telephone number also are not permitted to be included in thes comment boxes. I will comment on your channel.
NEW YORK/AMERICA, Business As Usual? NOOO.. HISTORIC EARTHQUAKE THEN HISTORIC HURRICANE/FLOODING!AMERICA/OBAMA STOP DIVIDING ISRAEL! DON’T YOU GET IT?IT’S A WARNING SIGN.GOD SAID CURSE ISRAEL AND YOU WILL BE CURSED,BLESS ISRAEL AND YOU WILL BE BLESSED. ON SEPT.20 THEY ARE GOING TO RECOGNIZE THE PALESTINIAN STATE IN UNITED NATIONS, DON’T DO THAT. BEFORE OR AFTER SEPT.20, THERE WILL BE ANOTHER, MAYBE A CATASTROPHIC ONE.REPENT!JESUS IS COMING!NEWS TODAY:SYRIA,ISRAEL –ISAIAH 17:1 AND JOEL 3:1-2.
I have a question, Vladika. How is the opening of genesis to be understood symbolically? Would that mean that the fall of man that occurs in genesis doesn't refer to a specific event in history but rather a falling away that occurs with each person individually?
@phyzicsify I think I will stay out of this one and let you and phyzicsify carry on your interesting conversation. Your views are completely welcome on my broadcast, as are his.
father, all this adam and eve story in the bible....was this planned to fail? just saying because if adam did not eat of the fruit they would be the only people on earth other than the deciver...i know its dumb to ask but i was curious cause where would have others souls (US) gone? so it look like its all planned then on gods part, weird thing is for other discussion it seems that this earth is satans kingdom.
@skata11 - What gives you the impression that Adam and Eve wouldn't have reproduced if they hadn't fallen? I'm certain God didn't want Adam and Eve to fall ... but it did not come as a surprise.
@groundhog0339 God certainly had made Adam and Eve with the "equipment" to reproduce, so there is no reason to think that they would not have. He also obviously did not intend for them to remain in the Garden, because He commanded them to multiply and "subdue the world."
@IvanDefendingTruth There are a multitude of opinions about all that. One opinion is just as good as another., The story of Paradise itself, including the word "paradise" comes from Zarathustra (Zoraoaster). The word means "a walled enclosure." Formal gardens were so enclosed, so we get the word Paradise from the teachings of Zarathustra, who so much influenced all the "Religions of the Book"
@skata11 It is interesting to note that the more we have moved away from our paleo/primal lifeway (and maybe it had to be so) the fatter, sicker, and dumber(cortisol) we have become. I'm not saying we should move back to caves, but messing w/God evolutionary blue print seems to have been a mistake.
@40chrisk Also worthy to note that it was said that Cain(the sociopath) was the one who left the primal way and built cities bringing peoples too close together and therefore alowing diesaeses and other social problems not encountered by "primitive" peoples to run lose.
'But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.'' this would seem to imply that before Adam would not die being in communion with God, just wondered what your thoughts on this would be. Thanks for the video.
@reformeddefence God is the only source of life; being in total communion with God would have been Adam's source of life by Grace. There is also the matter of spiritual death, would certainly would be a result of being alienated from God.
@StrikaAmaru Jesus told us there would be numerous heresies that would lead men away -- the large # doesn't really surprise anyone. In case this is what you're trying to argue: multiple denominations, no matter the number, does not falsify Christianity, just in the same way that multiple theories of how evolution functioned did not falsify evolution itself. Neo-Darwinianism seems to be the correct, for a lack of a better word, version of evolution, just as Orthodoxy is the only true Christinaity
@phyzicsify Yes, this question arises from a number of Evangelical Protestant scientists, who consider themselves to be believers. One can make what one wishes of it. I did not endorse or refute it, but raised some questions.
@BalladoftheWindfish Just google "Eastern Orthodox inerrancy" or the comments by the Archbishop. I know that Fr. Andrew Damick in his comparative theology lectures espouses the same view as myself.
Nitpick: if we have interbred with Neanderthals and we had viable offspring, we are the same species; that's the defining feature of "species".
Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons, and pretty much all Homo-xyz for the past 200,000 years would be sub-species of the same species; the different names are more useful as a way to label migrations, than anything else.
@BalladoftheWindfish Your lumping two kind of inerrancies together: that of dogma and that of details. Unless I'm wrong (and again, the Archbishop can correct me) The Orthodox Church sees the bible as inerrant in the sense that it does not teach heresy when properly understood and only espouses orthodox theology. The Church does not see it inerrant in the sense that every detail, no matter how insignificant, must be completely true. The Archbishop and I have provided examples in previous posts.
@phyzicsify So you are circumscribing inerrancy within the "circle: of dogma, correct? Are you sure that is what the Orthodox teach? Don't you have some sort of Catechism that you can reference?
@phyzicsify Either the Scripture is inerrant or it is not. So you are saying the Orthodox Church teaches that it is not inerrant? I am not trying to trick you.
@ BalladoftheWindfish What do you mean by "error"? Dogmatically, no, I do not. In timelines, inconsistencies in events, aka non-dogmatic and inconsequential things? Yes, I do. Such a view does not, to my knowledge, vie with either the early Church or Orthodoxy.
@phyzicsify Then you believe that the Bible is errant. I do not. Does the Orthodox Church teach that the Bible is errant or is that you personal opinion?
Are you an archbishop? I had no idea. Please put that in your videos somewhere - had I known that, I would have been more careful in my wording to not give the impression of insolence. I have great respect for you and your office, so please forgive any clumsy and rude words I may have written.
@phyzicsify I do not think you understand what I wrote. So here is a question that will get to the core of our differences: do you think any part of the Bible is in error? Simple yes or no answer.
@ BalladoftheWindfish Because God did not sit the apostles down and dictate to them every word; they wrote their gospels for certain audiences with certain aims: their works are inspired because they were able to obtain the Mind of the Fathers by participating in the life of the Church (I realize I'm only using the NT as an example here). However they are still men living within a certain time period and are bound to get details, inconsequential ones, incorrect. The earth isn't 6000 (cont)
@phyzicsify And, in fact, the sun does not "also ariseth," nor does it "knoweth its going down." It does neither of those things, nor is it able to know anything. The Flood of Noah may have been a terrible incident, but it was not a "world wide" flood. And certainly not in the chronology given. People had already been in the Americas for 5-6000 years by then and Egypt was already an old society by that time. Literalism will not work.
@phyzicsify If that is the case, the Orthodox Church is wrong on that. Since all of Sacred Scripture is divinely inspired, then it is totally without error, for how could God be in error? Now, how the inerrant words of Scripture are to be rightly interpreted is a separate question, but to say that the Bible is in error, as you suggest, is to be outside the pale of orthodoxy.
Also, does orthodoxanswers . com represent majority views of Orthodoxy, because this is on there.
"However, science does support the view that there is a primordial human couple, which can appropriately be called Adam and Eve (both names are highly symbolic in Hebrew and Greek)."
@allsaintsmonastery I'm confused, isn't the entire reason people are having this debate about Adam and Eve because science has shown it isn't possible for there to have been a first human couple?
@baahnmeh A literal world flood? One can accept it if one wishes, but it did not happen. A horrendous local flood? Yes, certainly. However, not on the chronology of Genesis, because that would have been 200 years aftger the building of the great pyramid at Giza.
Interesting video. So, I wonder if Neanderthals's souls are immortal by grace? It appears they may have had some form of religious beliefs and ritualistic burial practices, which may indicate a belief in an afterlife. Also seems both species practiced religious burial rites around the same time. Since, Jesus was a Non-African maybe the Neanderthals are to be included in the mystery of the Incarnation? Just my speculation. Any thoughts, Vladika?
Vladiko bless. I'd like to ask about the immortality of the soul? Did God make the souls immortal by nature, so that they exist by themselves unto ages of ages despite themselves constantly severing their nature and relation to God by sin, or did He make them mortal and is keeping souls " in the being" constantly by grace? I apologise if my english was bad.
You SERIOUSLY misunderstand the views of the "West." I don't even think any Protestant says were immortal by nature. Time and time again, the Orthodox mischaracterize our views, when doing so is utterly pointless. You don't miss any points by doing that.
@BalladoftheWindfish I have read their books; that is what it says in some of them. I realise that their are more than 100 different sects of Protestantism, and no two of them agree on thier theology, but I have had conversations with a number of them, and that is what they assert. However, the dominant religion in the West is still Roman Catholicism,
@allsaintsmonastery Let's clarify a few things. Catholicism does NOT assert 1) that we were immortal by nature 2) that Original Sin is transmitted through genetics or intercourse 3) that men after the Fall share in the personal guilt of Adam and are born guilty 4) that Christ incarnated to satisfy the death penalty incurred by OS (it is one possibility entertained by some theologians, but it is not dogmatic) 5) that the marital act is a venial sin. Now that those distractions have been addressed
@BalladoftheWindfish I don't see how anything in the video makes the possibility of polygenism any less of a problem to Orthodox Christianity than to the "West." We both believe in the Fall and we both believe in the inerrancy of Scripture (I assume, anyway), so you and I both need to workout some harmony between the historical event of the Fall involving our first parents and polygenism. I don't see how anything in the video addresses that.
@BalladoftheWindfish Reading the Catholic Catechism in Russian, for the Uniates, we see: "The bread is broken in the Liturgy because the bones of Christ were not broken, but so that He should not omit even this suffering in paying the price for our death, His bones are symbolically broken in the Liturgy." It was Augustine, among his many heresies, who taught that marriage is a venial sin. The Roman Church may not have accepted the whole of the doctrine, but in the debates in the 1200s it was an
@BalladoftheWindfish issue that was raised as doctrinal. The docrine of Original Sin most certainly taught that man inherits personal guilt for Adam's sin (as does the Calvinist version of Augustine's heresy), and the doctrine of substitutionary blood atonement is most certainly a Roman Catholic Doctrine, as it is for most Protestants. Archbishop Adam Exner (RC) expressed the problem with explaining baptism of infants"now that Original Sin is considered optional and not a binding doctrine"
@BalladoftheWindfish As he expressed it, "we have always held that baptism remits the guilt of Original Sin". Now, Vatican II may have done away with some of the false doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church and brought some doctrines back into line with the Orthodox Catholic Church, but I have not read all the changes made at V.II.
@allsaintsmonastery Vatican II was a "pastoral" council that merely reiterated the same dogmas and doctrines of the past - there were no "changes" in that regard. And I do not see any point in clarifying what I said any further. The Church simply does not teach what you say she does, and that is that. I have seen four of your videos, now, that repeat these false claims, and I would appreciate it if you picked up the Catechism and simply fact-check your claims. Oh and 6) does not teach penal sub
@BalladoftheWindfish It was pleasing to see, also, that John Paul brought the Latin understanding of Hell back into accord with the Orthodox Catholic understanding.
@BalladoftheWindfish I have looked at the faith declarations of dozens of Protestant communities and a majority of them explicitly state the heretical view that man is immortal by nature. A few Protestant communities, such as the Seventh Day Adventists, Christadelphians, the Bible Students and the Jehovah's Witnesses, believe in a form of conditional immortality by grace. But even their eschatological views include the heresy that man is unconscious after death. Not to mention other heresies.
@jim7071 The book of Fr. John Romanides ON THE ANCESTRAL SIN (Zephyr Publications) is likely the best. It can be ordered from Zephyr or from Light and Life Publications, both of which you can Google.
Where does sociopathy/psychopathy fit into your worldview; taking into account that the current data points to it being a genetic as opposed to a environmental phenomena?
Where does sociopathy/psychopathy fit into your worldview; taking into account that the current data points to it being a genetic as opposed to a environmental phenomena?
Where does sociopathy/psychopathy fit into your worldview; taking into account that the current data points to it being a genetic as opposed to a environmental phenomena?
Yes there was a general suspicion about sex being sinful, but marriage is a sacrament! Guilt is not inherited through sex, which is the consummating sign of this sacrament.
@MakeTheStand Marriage became a sacrament in the West only in the 1200, and there was a great deal of debate about it at the time. When Augustine created the doctrine of Orig.Sin the magic seven had not yet been created. There is no doctrine of "Seven Sacraments" in the ancient Church. There is no such limit on the grace of the Holy Spirit. Marriage was said to be one of the Holy Mysteries in the East only in the 16th century, and then through Uniatism. But you see the internal contradictions
@MakeTheStand That overwhelm Western theology? Marriage is a ssacrament, but Original Guilt (Sin) is transmitted through the sexual relations that facilitate procreation? The late RC Archbishop of Vancouver once remarked to us that "now that the doctrine of Original Sin is in question, we no longer have an explanation for the baptism of infants."
@MakeTheStand Alas, Make, the doctrine of Or Sin is quite clearly stated to be passed on through the sexual relation that facillitates procreation. Earlier RC theorists advised couples to strive not to enjoy the sexual act, because the more they enjoyed it, the more guilt was trasmitted. I do not know what is being said in our era, but in earlier times, RCs were advised to feel a sense of remorse and regret during the sex act.
Haha omg this is ridiculous. This is the problem when criticising one Church from the other side, the facts are either misunderstood or just out dated. Yes, st Augustine believed that "in sin I was conceived in my mothers womb," and as influential as he is in the Western church, Rome doesn't uphold his philosophy about that. At least anymore. I'll admit that before the council of Trent and especially Vatican II this sex=sin mentality has been done away with.
@MakeTheStand True enough, and Vatican II brought some reality and truth into the RC Church, which is why so many RCs of the ultra Rightwing variety reject Vatican II as heretical.
I was wondering how someone becoming evil is different from someone being evil and how that affects God's responsibility for the existence of evil. If someone becomes evil they were created by God with the capacity to do/become evil how does that absolve God's responsibility for creating evil.
To me it would be as if I rigged a bucked trap above a door and then claimed that I wasn't responsible for the existence of the subsequent puddle on the floor if someone waked through that door.
@themanofearth Lets look at Psychopathy for example: it appears that this state of "evil" results (at least often) from an overproduction of dopamine, which overwhelms the pre-frontal cortex regions that regulate social behaviour and curtail the drive for gratification. There are a number of neurobiological factors that can lead to a person doing evil things. Hitler and Stalin, for example, had real psychiatric illnesses, but the lust for absolute power was a force also.
@allsaintsmonastery I'm not sure how that addresses my question about God's (non)responsibility for evil. Is God not responsible for nature which, by definition, includes the neurobiological factors that can lead to a person doing evil things? Would that not be included in the creator building in the capacity for evil and then not claiming responsibility for evil when it is preformed like not claiming responsibility for the puddle after setting the bucket trap?
Genetic gene or chronsome...1st time I heard of that...again, I love that train passing. Had to see a street view where that RR is located...across the street from the monastery on Hawkins Pickle Road (couldn´t see the monastery bldgs because of the trees) .Nice to visit the area via google street views.
I think it is very important,this difference in theology.i not grasp the implications and differences in original sin / ancestrial sin,and there implications.So I hope we can hear very much moore about it,The Catholic Church believes a real Adam and Eve,but no such thing as some " some sort of guilt gene!? " i believe a jewish genetisist a decade ago traced conclusively,that all humans without acception,have been created by 2 parents! Please keep your eyes Open! Closed,is distrcting,looks t self
@hermitofdw You would have to take that up with the Evangelical Protestant scientists, and you would also have to explain the Neandertal genes and why Africans do not have them, while those who had moved out of Africa do. I am not denying the historical Adam and Eve, but some significant Protestant scientist do, and they have some quite profound arguments in favour of that.
@hermitofdw The official statement of Original Sin is that the guilt is transmitted through the sex act, "concupisence". The sex act in marriage being a venial sin (Augustine declared that marriage is a venial sin, cloaked in a guise of respectability for the sake of procreation.) He also invented the notion of Original Sin, which has more in common with the Greek myth of Zagrios than with Scripture.
@allsaintsmonastery "The official statement of Original Sin is that the guilt is transmitted through the sex act, "concupisence". The sex act in marriage being a venial sin"
This is pretty outrageous of you to claim. You must know that everything in the above is false and is not the teaching of "Rome."
Hello, I am an atheist who enjoys some of your videos, its nice to see a highly educated theologian and dare I say philosopher of religion. My question would be, do you know about any roman catholic theologian on a similar intellectual level as yours here on youtube? I would like to have the correspondence between my ideas and those of major western religions. Thanks.
I think this would explain the fervent opposition towards evolution that we see among many Christians, because it essentially knocks down their entire belief system from Adam and Eve onwards. I personally don't believe in Christianity, and I can't claim to know whether God exists, but if I did believe in God I would not see any field of science as a threat to my beliefs.
@BeautifulTruthShow Indeed. This would especially explain the Calvinist Fundamentalist hysteria about it. We also have some people who are hysterical about it; but evolution is a fact and all the hysteria and pseudo-science in the world will not change that reality. It is quite clear that two species of human arose independently of each other, and interbred. By the way, it is not illogical to surmise that the "giants" referred to in Genesis were the Neandertals, who also prac. canibalism.
@allsaintsmonastery Although I personally do not hold this view, I feel that acceptance of the current scientific model of the universe and life leads to a grander picture of God. Rather than a being who rather clumsily creates all things individually, we have a being who created a universe with laws that allow intelligent life to design itself without constant intervention. The ability for life to arise is written into the laws of the universe - this picture of God is far grander in my view.
@BeautifulTruthShow More like the creation of a creative universe, in which the things created are themselves creative, and there is a synergy between the creation and the Creator. That would appear to be a significant concept of great merit.
What the heck? This isn't the doctrine of original sin at all. It's polemics to think that Westerners believe in a guilt gene. Original sin is a spiritual link which by the same union provides salvation through Christ! Guilt gene....give me a break.
@MakeTheStand Didn't Saint Augustine argue that original sin was passed down to children through the conception's sexual act or something ? Knowledge of genetics didn't exist at the time, but please point out to me my errors, but doesn't that sound a bit like some kind of "Genetic Guilt" ?
@MakeTheStand No, they don't. Genes were not even known at the time the heresiarch Augustine whipped up this doctrine. However, since it is the sex act between husband and wife that transmits this "guilt," and the only way to transmit a quality from one generation to the other is genetic, you come up with a better explanation of how one transmit a generic guilt from one generation to another. We are all waiting for your explanation.
Beg you're pardon you're eminence but you have caricatured the western tradition of atonement. No Catholic or Anglican worth is his/her will say that the atonement promotes violence.
@manutdfan4321 They won't say it, but history has already demonnstrated that the neo-Pagan doctrine of Atonement promotes violence. It is noteworthy that when Anselm created this hideous docttrine just after the year A.D.1000, he based it on the medieval law regulating the duel. He, in fact, admitted that he could not accept the Traditional Christian doctrine: it did not have ramifications that would fit the dialectic of the law court.
After ProfMth made his video on this I watched a Catholic response, then I thought this is one for allsaintsmonastery to tackle and show how this issue really does not affect Orthodox theology at all. Now I opened my subscriptions and...YES. You are on top of things.
@dlsbucur Yes it does, you may have watched his video incorrectly because his argument is that Paul was completely wrong about Adam and Eve being historical and if he is wrong about that why would you trust him about Jesus? I don't remember him mentioning Paul here.
@adrenacrumb If Christ is not risen then our faith is in vain. This is the most important historical claim of our faith. That Adam and Eve are true historical individuals does not affect my salvation in Christ.
@nojoso What did he come back from the dead for? Your entire faith is based on a belief a Jewish guy rose from the dead 2000 years ago? Really, should that be all that important for someone to believe happened?
@nojoso Reason he came back from the dead doesn't matter at all? As long as his heart stopped and then he came back to life that's it, that's the entire religion, guy coming back to life?
We didn't need to wait for biology, common sense should have told you that. Why was Paul under the impression Adam and Eve were historical people? You okay with Paul being wrong?
@adrenacrumb I do think that people who have a very strong model of reality need more than common sense to make them aware that the model needs to be revised. Paul would have had no reason to doubt the story. In the end, one might take the story for its implications for mankind: the development of egoism and self-love. But as to the Ancestral Sin: no one inherits guilt. No one is born with hate, mallice of prejudice: we have to teach our children to hate, to have malice to have prejudices.
@allsaintsmonastery Yea but wasn't paul talking to Jesus all the time? You would think he would want to get that one right. Why would Paul be right about Jesus and completely wrong about other parts of the religion?
@adrenacrumb Well, the scientific truth about human origins and generally about the way God created all things is not really "part of religion". Christ didn't come to teach the Apostles biology lessons, but spiritual ones. Had He been talking about Neanderthals and neutron stars to those people, His missionary work would have gained only a couple of stares and laughs. (On a side note: St. Paul never actually met Christ in human flesh to "talk to him all the time" the way we do, anyway ;) )
@syonnain I'm not suggesting he was supposed to buff up Paul on biology, merely giving him the correct interpretation for the origins of the faith. If the most important figure of the religion after Christ can't even properly understand the religion what does that say about the bible? I don't know where you are getting I am trying to claim this is about any scientific knowledge, it is the very foundation of the religion.
@adrenacrumb I'm suggesting that maybe... just maybe... you have a wrong impression about what Orthodoxy really is about. Because no father of the Church, saint, or even sincere believer considers the process by which God created all things and humans to be "the very foundation of" Orthodoxy". Knowing of this process doesn't make you a better, kinder person, doesn't fill you with love and desire to help others; it has no role in achieving the goals of faith. So how can it be a central thing?
@syonnain Alright well Orthodoxy must mean you believe whatever you want then, so that's a cool religion. I would love to see the biblical basis for its 'beliefs'. You would think since Paul believed Adam and Eve were crucial to the religion that would mean something but I guess Orthodoxy means believe whatever you want when the bible says something you don't like.
Also,you should grasp the fact that you say “Jesus should have told Paul this and Paul should have said that” with a mind and a worldview modeled by centuries of rationalistic,scientific civilization. But the world was very different back then,for the first Christians,and they had other priorities and gave different importance to things than we do know now. So,before saying what we think is the foundation of their faith,we have to try to get into their way of thinking and experiencing the faith.
@syonnain So not a problem Paul was completely misrepresenting the entire point of Christianity and salvation according to what you are telling me are Orthodox views? Fair enough, just toss out whatever you want and make it be about what you want, who needs guidelines right?
@syonnain I've just converted to Orthodoxy. Since I can pretty much do whatever I want hell is just as cool as heaven now except they don't have cake, so that's no longer a problem. Salvation depends on how many bananas you eat a day not that works or believing in Jesus stuff. Believing in Jesus is actually a penalty now.
@adrenacrumb You're funny, man... You're also intelectually dishonest if you reached these conclusions about Orthodoxy from what I said... But good sense of humour, though... Take care :)
@syonnain I'm starting to think Orthodoxy is just a practical joke because anytime theres a problem the answer has always been basically you can just pretty much believe whatever you want but then when I hear the services it sounds just like normal Christianity.
@adrenacrumb So we do not pass on a genetic guilt, but through our example and what we teach our children, we certainly do pass on egoism and self-focus, hatred, malice, prejudices and even violence. These are aspects of the stories of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel and the polygamos Lamech. These are the stories of each of us and all of us. There is a useful insight into the fundamental problems of humanity. We can even say that Christ strove the free us from our egoism, arrogance and violence.
I am ok with Paul being wrong... and not only wrong but even a sinner like all of us, and yet a saint. Sainthood has nothing to do with infallibility and sinlessness. Saints are not infallible nor sinless, only Christ was such. Do not take sainthood as some kind of far eastern guru-type enlightenment...
hey adrenacrumb, it seems you 've no idea about "my tradition", I don't trust what Paul said, I trust what Matthew, Luke, John, Mark and Paul etc. said together with the consensus of each generation after generation together with the affirmation of those who have a living relationship with God, thus I don't trust a book but the Church. But in order to understand that you should read what is "Church" in Ancient Undivided Christianism and still is in Orthodox Christianism.
I cannot really understand what you are trying to say. Anyway some clarifications: The gospels and the New Testament are part of the Holy Tradition but we don't consider them infallible in the way muslims believe Quran is a copy of a divine book thus infallible. That's why we have 4 gospels and not just 1. "How long I've been to this religion": I am greek thus orthodox, but I 'd say that I started discovering what orthodoxy is really about since 20 years and it is not a religion.
@telisna Okay well I'm obviously not going to get much out of you, anyone that goes mental from asking them a simple question is too dogmatic in the faith to speak with reasonably. If it's not a religion then there is no such thing as a religion. Have fun with that.
check that regarding religion. "go mental"? I cannot understand the expression... well dogmatic is a subjective opinion of yours... may be true... I don't feel that way...
@telisna~ hey adrenacrumb, it seems you 've no idea about "my tradition", ~ it means typing something like that. I can already tell that video is wrong, no one defines religion the way it is described in the boxas appeasing Gods. Buddhism is a religion and they don't even have Gods so that video is useless.
well ok sorry for that phrase, but I felt it was needed to make clear that you are talking about something different than "my tradition". About buddhism: of course nirayana buddhism is not a religion but you see people have such a need for religions that turned even buddhism into a religion by mahayana. The same goes with Christianity... in case you spend some time to watch the videos at that channel you will understand what I mean even though you probably disagree with me...
@telisna "Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and moral values."
That's the definition of religion. You don't normally just get to define things however you want.
well, discussing about definitions is not so fruitful. In case you want to use the word religion for nirayana or orthodoxy that's ok with me, I will understand what you mean. But please allow me not using the word religion for nirayana for example since I consider it to be a philosophy.
I've started to read Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives by Peter Bouteneff. It has been very good in covering the same material discussed in this video.
neildingman 3 months ago
By the way, I had to ask if you have read the "Neandertal Engima, Solving the Mystery of Modern Human Origins," by James Shreeve @1995?
Chad01234 4 months ago
Vladika, when you say we were created in the "image and likeness" of God, does that mean physically (the body) as well as spiritually (the soul)? I have always assumed that Orthodox Christianity teaches that the likeness of God refers only to the soul. Therefore, the physical shell can have a myriad of forms (hue of skin, deformity, gender, etc).
Chad01234 4 months ago
@Chad01234 Son, what we would conclude from the holy fathers is that it refers to intellect and free-will, and perhaps the will to virtue (arete).
allsaintsmonastery 4 months ago
I like the train. My last two years as an undergrad at Elmhurst College was spent in a dorm next to the tracks. It became quite pleasant after a while.
Chad01234 4 months ago
Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden ,a nice kindergarten fairy tale.
ndzoko 5 months ago
@ndzoko It is notable that the story is never mentioned in Hebrew Scripture, after the Creation Narrative, and it does not become significant until the New Testament. It may very well be, as many scholars assert, that the book of Genesis, up until Abraham, was added only after the Exile into Babylon. The era of Abraham is the first actually historical era in the book. The story about Paradise may not have existed in Hebrew literature until after the Exile.
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
@allsaintsmonastery It is also notable that "Adam" is not an actual name in Hebrew. It means "mankind". The word for just one man is "ish". Also, the Jewish Theologian Nachmanides said in the 13th century that what made Adam a true human was his soul and that there were other man like creatures without a soul. His contemporary Maimonides echoes this same sentiment in his "Guide for the perplexed" in the first part chapter 7. Thanks for the Video!
AegeanKing 3 months ago
Thank You Archbishop Lazar.
I have always been rather perplexed why Adam & Eve was so significant as the Old Testament is Jewish. Now I know that Jesus is claimed to be a Rabbi in origin yet I see a very stark difference between the God that Jesus teaches & the God of the Tanakh/Torah.
Now I feel a need to express my position on the Nicene Creed & that I feel it expresses a highly improbable event so you may understand where I am coming from. I also understand you do adopt this creed. >
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago in playlist More videos from allsaintsmonastery
> But setting aside that difference, I see the nature of western Christianity is heavily based on the Jewish texts & not on the words of Christ & I see Orthodox as more trying to understand the Jewish texts through the words of Christ.
That being said, at this stage I find no reason for Orthodoxy to read too much into Jewish texts other than the path that Jesus was ultimately fighting against & what got him pinned to a plank.
>
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago in playlist More videos from allsaintsmonastery
> There was really only 1 command Jesus set forth for those that follow his way & that is "To Love One Another". Now that I can live with 8)
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago in playlist More videos from allsaintsmonastery
@MilitantPeaceist Oh that all Orthodox Christians, especially clergy, could actually live up to that command. We don't. There is still far to much hate and prejudice in all religions, and Christians have the least excuse for it because Christ taught so much the opposite.
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
I thought original sin wasn't a part of orthodox theology as it was oringinally done by Augustine. I know orthodox rejectaugustine and his ideas.
bossman103 5 months ago
@bossman103 The Orthodox Church has never had any notion of the doctrine of Original Guilt (Original Sin). The Orthodox understanding of The Ancestral Sin is that we have a proclivity for the misuse of our energies because of the separation from God that came about as a result of the actions of Adam and Eve.
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
Also in the Orthodox Church the icon of the Resurrection which is the most celebrated feast in the Church, is an icon of Christ freeing Adam and Eve from hell, so to say that their existence has no effect on the Orthodoxy's understanding of the Incarnation seems wrong. The Church Fathers all saw Adam as directly being related to the reason of Christ's Incarnation. One example of many is St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 23.
divineflashes 5 months ago
@divineflashes Of course. But you see, it is Evangelical Christians, not Orthodox Christians, who are asserting that Adam could not have existed. Remember, we are Orthodox, not Evangelicals.
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
@allsaintsmonastery Amen, Amen! Evangelical Christians place contradictions where there should be none. Christ's Incarnation is also based on contradiction, but in the way of the life-creating cross! As you would say, "Truth is Counter-Intuitive."
divineflashes 5 months ago
Paul's entire theology of the Incarnation is based off of Christ being the new Adam. Paul emphasizes this again and again throughout his epistles. How then can you say that whether Adam ever existed or not has absolutely no affect on the Orthodox understanding of salvation which you claim is based entirely from the Nativity of Christ and His Incarnation? I refer you to 1 Cor 15:21-22, 45-49 and Romans 5:12-15.
divineflashes 5 months ago
@divineflashes Interesting. Divine Flashes is the title of an important Islamic work (by Sa'id Nursi).
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
@divineflashes True. so it is quite interesting that it is Evangelicals who are denying that Adam was real, is it not?? This is pretty much the direction that Evangelical Protestantism is going with the new generation.
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
@allsaintsmonastery
I thought it was more liberal Protestantism that was challenging Adam's historicity? Evangelical theology tends to take the Fall very seriously and promote Biblical inerrant. I tend to think of Evangelism as "Christian fundamentalism light," and fundamentalist churches have been known to teach creationism during services.
tifforo1 5 months ago
@tifforo1 There is solid and clear scientific reason to believe that the idea that all people descended from a single set of parents is quite impossible. It is certain that there were at least three distinct species of humans which interbred to form modern man. Of them, the Neandertal likely contributed the most to the violent nature. It is, in fact, professors in Fundamenalist institutions such as Trinity Western here in British Columbia, who are calling Adam into question.
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
@divineflashes well but, the name adam does not have to necessarily signify a single particular person, for example jacob was called israel, and so was the entire tribe of israel, in fact we have so many passages where God refers ro isreal as a single bride(hosea), and many other symbols, as in those days it was precisely how people were referred to,a single name would constitute a community, so in that sense it dosent neccesarily have to contradict st.paul
paulomi123 5 months ago
Comment removed
whitneyhouston1000 5 months ago
@paulomi123 Of course you are welcome to interpret however you wish, but what you are saying clearly goes against the teaching of every Church Father and St. Paul who says, "Wherefore as by ONE man sin entered into this world..." And: "For if by the offence of ONE, many died; much more the grace of God, and the gift, by the grace of ONE man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." Christ and Adam are both individual persons who represent humanity. The Theotokos redeems Eve as Christ frees Adam.
divineflashes 5 months ago
@divineflashes "(The Lord) was not averse to males, for he took the form of a male, nor to females, for of a female he was born. Besides, there is a great mystery here: that just as death comes to us through a woman, Life is born to us through a woman; that the devil, defeated, would be tormented by each nature, feminine and masculine, as he had taken delight in the defection of both" - St. Augustine
divineflashes 5 months ago
Vladyka Bless,
How do we view a number of the fathers who claim that through Adam's transgression, nature became corrupted and concequently all things now die? In addition, how do we view Christ's salvific defeat of death, if death prevailed over nature since the beginning, then was freed by Christ? The image of "The Second Adam" seems to be void of meaning by this as well as Christ "restoring all things".
Sephentheptotomartyr 5 months ago
@Sephentheptotomartyr I did not "confirm" the Evangelical position that Adam did not exist. I am only demonstrating the difference if teachings that would be amplified by the idea that Adam did not exist. So far as I know, there are no Orthodox scientist who agree with the Evangelicals.
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
@Sephentheptotomartyr I did not say that I agreed with the Evangelicals who assert that Adam did not actually exist. i only used their assertion to demonstrate the difference between the Traditional Christian doctrine and the Protestant doctrine.
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
Vladika, is it perhaps more safe to conclude (evolution and creation debates aside) that every man is an Adam and every woman is an Eve?
melamonastic 5 months ago
@melamonastic The Old Testament is essentially a story of humanity. We each are Adam and Eve, and the temptation to accept a counterfeit instead of what God has given us is ever present, and a struggle that each one of us face daily.
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
your emminence I do have a problem in undestanding though ,why is it in the end of the creation narrative that God says if man stays in the garden of eden he would eat from the tree of life so we should drive him out, but why does God do that if man eventually had to gain life from Jesus Christ (tree of life) ,he could have gained life from the tree of life and defeated death there itself and freed himself??, its just my thought please correct....
paulomi123 5 months ago
its really revealing the fact that adam and eve were not created immortal, at first i was confused but after i read the writings of st.Ireneaus of lyon in his book against heresies he clearly mentions if adam and eve were immortal why would they have to eat , which really is an amazing point to ponder for all protestants
paulomi123 5 months ago
Love your videos, a blessing..
MrBrendaneoin22 5 months ago
Could you tell me please how someone who is an Orthodox Christian would answer this questions: Why did Jesus have to die?
Just out of curiosity whereabouts is your monastery? I know the Fraser Valley quite well but am not certain as to your location. Is it open to visitors?
Very thoughtful video sir ((I am not sure how to address you?). My wife and I have been talking a lot about it since I first shared it with her. Thanks.
MusingsFromTheJohn 5 months ago
@MusingsFromTheJohn We are just East of Mission, at the village of Dewdney. There is a map at (we are not allowed to give web addresses in these reply boxes, in proper format. We welcome visitors, but you should telephone ahead of time . Why did Christ die will be discussed on part 2 of this bradcast Telephone number also are not permitted to be included in thes comment boxes. I will comment on your channel.
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW YORK/AMERICA, Business As Usual? NOOO.. HISTORIC EARTHQUAKE THEN HISTORIC HURRICANE/FLOODING!AMERICA/OBAMA STOP DIVIDING ISRAEL! DON’T YOU GET IT?IT’S A WARNING SIGN.GOD SAID CURSE ISRAEL AND YOU WILL BE CURSED,BLESS ISRAEL AND YOU WILL BE BLESSED. ON SEPT.20 THEY ARE GOING TO RECOGNIZE THE PALESTINIAN STATE IN UNITED NATIONS, DON’T DO THAT. BEFORE OR AFTER SEPT.20, THERE WILL BE ANOTHER, MAYBE A CATASTROPHIC ONE.REPENT!JESUS IS COMING!NEWS TODAY:SYRIA,ISRAEL –ISAIAH 17:1 AND JOEL 3:1-2.
TheENTERRAPTURE17 5 months ago
I have a question, Vladika. How is the opening of genesis to be understood symbolically? Would that mean that the fall of man that occurs in genesis doesn't refer to a specific event in history but rather a falling away that occurs with each person individually?
Bakmoon 5 months ago
I am proud to be Orthodox when I listen to Lazar
JohnTheHutDweller 5 months ago
@phyzicsify I think I will stay out of this one and let you and phyzicsify carry on your interesting conversation. Your views are completely welcome on my broadcast, as are his.
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
father, all this adam and eve story in the bible....was this planned to fail? just saying because if adam did not eat of the fruit they would be the only people on earth other than the deciver...i know its dumb to ask but i was curious cause where would have others souls (US) gone? so it look like its all planned then on gods part, weird thing is for other discussion it seems that this earth is satans kingdom.
skata11 5 months ago
@skata11 Evidently so. It is notable that it is a group of Evangelical Protestant scientists who have demonstrated this "troublesome" fact.
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
@allsaintsmonastery Wonder if during our evolution it was ONE sin or a collecton of sins in which evolving man turned from God?
40chrisk 5 months ago
@skata11 - What gives you the impression that Adam and Eve wouldn't have reproduced if they hadn't fallen? I'm certain God didn't want Adam and Eve to fall ... but it did not come as a surprise.
groundhog0339 5 months ago
@groundhog0339 God certainly had made Adam and Eve with the "equipment" to reproduce, so there is no reason to think that they would not have. He also obviously did not intend for them to remain in the Garden, because He commanded them to multiply and "subdue the world."
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
@allsaintsmonastery It seems to be the opposite. The Garden was to be extended so as to encompass the entire world.
IvanDefendingTruth 5 months ago
@IvanDefendingTruth There are a multitude of opinions about all that. One opinion is just as good as another., The story of Paradise itself, including the word "paradise" comes from Zarathustra (Zoraoaster). The word means "a walled enclosure." Formal gardens were so enclosed, so we get the word Paradise from the teachings of Zarathustra, who so much influenced all the "Religions of the Book"
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
@skata11 It is interesting to note that the more we have moved away from our paleo/primal lifeway (and maybe it had to be so) the fatter, sicker, and dumber(cortisol) we have become. I'm not saying we should move back to caves, but messing w/God evolutionary blue print seems to have been a mistake.
40chrisk 5 months ago
@40chrisk Also worthy to note that it was said that Cain(the sociopath) was the one who left the primal way and built cities bringing peoples too close together and therefore alowing diesaeses and other social problems not encountered by "primitive" peoples to run lose.
40chrisk 5 months ago
GOD told Adam,
'But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.'' this would seem to imply that before Adam would not die being in communion with God, just wondered what your thoughts on this would be. Thanks for the video.
reformeddefence 5 months ago
@reformeddefence God is the only source of life; being in total communion with God would have been Adam's source of life by Grace. There is also the matter of spiritual death, would certainly would be a result of being alienated from God.
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
@StrikaAmaru Jesus told us there would be numerous heresies that would lead men away -- the large # doesn't really surprise anyone. In case this is what you're trying to argue: multiple denominations, no matter the number, does not falsify Christianity, just in the same way that multiple theories of how evolution functioned did not falsify evolution itself. Neo-Darwinianism seems to be the correct, for a lack of a better word, version of evolution, just as Orthodoxy is the only true Christinaity
phyzicsify 5 months ago
@phyzicsify Yes, this question arises from a number of Evangelical Protestant scientists, who consider themselves to be believers. One can make what one wishes of it. I did not endorse or refute it, but raised some questions.
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
@BalladoftheWindfish Just google "Eastern Orthodox inerrancy" or the comments by the Archbishop. I know that Fr. Andrew Damick in his comparative theology lectures espouses the same view as myself.
phyzicsify 5 months ago
Nitpick: if we have interbred with Neanderthals and we had viable offspring, we are the same species; that's the defining feature of "species".
Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons, and pretty much all Homo-xyz for the past 200,000 years would be sub-species of the same species; the different names are more useful as a way to label migrations, than anything else.
StrikaAmaru 5 months ago
This was awful---a really erroneous, blasphemous video on many levels. This man has no credibility as far as I'm concerned.
DallPro95 5 months ago
@DallPro95 ...Says the Christian fundamentalist who doesn't know jack about Christianity.
BalladoftheWindfish 5 months ago
@DallPro95 Welcome to the joys of multi-sectarianism.
Really, there are ~34 000 different Cristian sects. Odds are, any imaginable interpretation of the Scriptures is upheld by somebody somewhere.
And if it's not, you can always start your own.
StrikaAmaru 5 months ago
@BalladoftheWindfish Your lumping two kind of inerrancies together: that of dogma and that of details. Unless I'm wrong (and again, the Archbishop can correct me) The Orthodox Church sees the bible as inerrant in the sense that it does not teach heresy when properly understood and only espouses orthodox theology. The Church does not see it inerrant in the sense that every detail, no matter how insignificant, must be completely true. The Archbishop and I have provided examples in previous posts.
phyzicsify 5 months ago
@phyzicsify So you are circumscribing inerrancy within the "circle: of dogma, correct? Are you sure that is what the Orthodox teach? Don't you have some sort of Catechism that you can reference?
BalladoftheWindfish 5 months ago
@ BalladoftheWindfish The Orthodox Church does not require one to believe that all of Scripture is inerrant to the most minute detail.
phyzicsify 5 months ago
@phyzicsify Either the Scripture is inerrant or it is not. So you are saying the Orthodox Church teaches that it is not inerrant? I am not trying to trick you.
BalladoftheWindfish 5 months ago
@ BalladoftheWindfish What do you mean by "error"? Dogmatically, no, I do not. In timelines, inconsistencies in events, aka non-dogmatic and inconsequential things? Yes, I do. Such a view does not, to my knowledge, vie with either the early Church or Orthodoxy.
phyzicsify 5 months ago
@phyzicsify Then you believe that the Bible is errant. I do not. Does the Orthodox Church teach that the Bible is errant or is that you personal opinion?
BalladoftheWindfish 5 months ago
Are you an archbishop? I had no idea. Please put that in your videos somewhere - had I known that, I would have been more careful in my wording to not give the impression of insolence. I have great respect for you and your office, so please forgive any clumsy and rude words I may have written.
BalladoftheWindfish 5 months ago
Sociopathy- how does it fit into your worldview?
TrashHeapHedonist 5 months ago
@ BalladoftheWindfish years old, so to speak. The Archbishop may correct me if I haven't accurately represented the Orthodox teaching here.
phyzicsify 5 months ago
@phyzicsify I do not think you understand what I wrote. So here is a question that will get to the core of our differences: do you think any part of the Bible is in error? Simple yes or no answer.
BalladoftheWindfish 5 months ago
@ BalladoftheWindfish Because God did not sit the apostles down and dictate to them every word; they wrote their gospels for certain audiences with certain aims: their works are inspired because they were able to obtain the Mind of the Fathers by participating in the life of the Church (I realize I'm only using the NT as an example here). However they are still men living within a certain time period and are bound to get details, inconsequential ones, incorrect. The earth isn't 6000 (cont)
phyzicsify 5 months ago
@phyzicsify The Gospels do not agree on which day Christ was crucified, so which one is inerrant???
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
@allsaintsmonastery Exactly, your Eminence.
phyzicsify 5 months ago
@phyzicsify And, in fact, the sun does not "also ariseth," nor does it "knoweth its going down." It does neither of those things, nor is it able to know anything. The Flood of Noah may have been a terrible incident, but it was not a "world wide" flood. And certainly not in the chronology given. People had already been in the Americas for 5-6000 years by then and Egypt was already an old society by that time. Literalism will not work.
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
Thank you very much dear abba
simsimaz2 5 months ago
@phyzicsify If that is the case, the Orthodox Church is wrong on that. Since all of Sacred Scripture is divinely inspired, then it is totally without error, for how could God be in error? Now, how the inerrant words of Scripture are to be rightly interpreted is a separate question, but to say that the Bible is in error, as you suggest, is to be outside the pale of orthodoxy.
BalladoftheWindfish 5 months ago
excellent.
1961raver 5 months ago
Also, does orthodoxanswers . com represent majority views of Orthodoxy, because this is on there.
"However, science does support the view that there is a primordial human couple, which can appropriately be called Adam and Eve (both names are highly symbolic in Hebrew and Greek)."
baahnmeh 5 months ago
@baahnmeh I would not disagree, provided we acknowledge that Neandertals entered into picture, and they were certainly a different species of humans.
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
@allsaintsmonastery I'm confused, isn't the entire reason people are having this debate about Adam and Eve because science has shown it isn't possible for there to have been a first human couple?
baahnmeh 5 months ago
Does Orthodoxy teach a literal global flood? Evolution pretty much rules that out as a possibility as well.
baahnmeh 5 months ago
@baahnmeh A literal world flood? One can accept it if one wishes, but it did not happen. A horrendous local flood? Yes, certainly. However, not on the chronology of Genesis, because that would have been 200 years aftger the building of the great pyramid at Giza.
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
Interesting video. So, I wonder if Neanderthals's souls are immortal by grace? It appears they may have had some form of religious beliefs and ritualistic burial practices, which may indicate a belief in an afterlife. Also seems both species practiced religious burial rites around the same time. Since, Jesus was a Non-African maybe the Neanderthals are to be included in the mystery of the Incarnation? Just my speculation. Any thoughts, Vladika?
neildingman 5 months ago
Vladiko bless. I'd like to ask about the immortality of the soul? Did God make the souls immortal by nature, so that they exist by themselves unto ages of ages despite themselves constantly severing their nature and relation to God by sin, or did He make them mortal and is keeping souls " in the being" constantly by grace? I apologise if my english was bad.
RabMaksim 5 months ago
@RabMaksim The soul could not be immortal by nature, but only by grace. Immortallity by nature could only be a property of God.
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
You SERIOUSLY misunderstand the views of the "West." I don't even think any Protestant says were immortal by nature. Time and time again, the Orthodox mischaracterize our views, when doing so is utterly pointless. You don't miss any points by doing that.
BalladoftheWindfish 5 months ago
@BalladoftheWindfish I have read their books; that is what it says in some of them. I realise that their are more than 100 different sects of Protestantism, and no two of them agree on thier theology, but I have had conversations with a number of them, and that is what they assert. However, the dominant religion in the West is still Roman Catholicism,
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
@allsaintsmonastery Let's clarify a few things. Catholicism does NOT assert 1) that we were immortal by nature 2) that Original Sin is transmitted through genetics or intercourse 3) that men after the Fall share in the personal guilt of Adam and are born guilty 4) that Christ incarnated to satisfy the death penalty incurred by OS (it is one possibility entertained by some theologians, but it is not dogmatic) 5) that the marital act is a venial sin. Now that those distractions have been addressed
BalladoftheWindfish 5 months ago
@BalladoftheWindfish I don't see how anything in the video makes the possibility of polygenism any less of a problem to Orthodox Christianity than to the "West." We both believe in the Fall and we both believe in the inerrancy of Scripture (I assume, anyway), so you and I both need to workout some harmony between the historical event of the Fall involving our first parents and polygenism. I don't see how anything in the video addresses that.
BalladoftheWindfish 5 months ago
@BalladoftheWindfish Reading the Catholic Catechism in Russian, for the Uniates, we see: "The bread is broken in the Liturgy because the bones of Christ were not broken, but so that He should not omit even this suffering in paying the price for our death, His bones are symbolically broken in the Liturgy." It was Augustine, among his many heresies, who taught that marriage is a venial sin. The Roman Church may not have accepted the whole of the doctrine, but in the debates in the 1200s it was an
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
@BalladoftheWindfish issue that was raised as doctrinal. The docrine of Original Sin most certainly taught that man inherits personal guilt for Adam's sin (as does the Calvinist version of Augustine's heresy), and the doctrine of substitutionary blood atonement is most certainly a Roman Catholic Doctrine, as it is for most Protestants. Archbishop Adam Exner (RC) expressed the problem with explaining baptism of infants"now that Original Sin is considered optional and not a binding doctrine"
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
@BalladoftheWindfish As he expressed it, "we have always held that baptism remits the guilt of Original Sin". Now, Vatican II may have done away with some of the false doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church and brought some doctrines back into line with the Orthodox Catholic Church, but I have not read all the changes made at V.II.
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
@allsaintsmonastery Vatican II was a "pastoral" council that merely reiterated the same dogmas and doctrines of the past - there were no "changes" in that regard. And I do not see any point in clarifying what I said any further. The Church simply does not teach what you say she does, and that is that. I have seen four of your videos, now, that repeat these false claims, and I would appreciate it if you picked up the Catechism and simply fact-check your claims. Oh and 6) does not teach penal sub
BalladoftheWindfish 5 months ago
@BalladoftheWindfish It was pleasing to see, also, that John Paul brought the Latin understanding of Hell back into accord with the Orthodox Catholic understanding.
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
@BalladoftheWindfish I have looked at the faith declarations of dozens of Protestant communities and a majority of them explicitly state the heretical view that man is immortal by nature. A few Protestant communities, such as the Seventh Day Adventists, Christadelphians, the Bible Students and the Jehovah's Witnesses, believe in a form of conditional immortality by grace. But even their eschatological views include the heresy that man is unconscious after death. Not to mention other heresies.
NABegley 5 months ago
@jim7071 The book of Fr. John Romanides ON THE ANCESTRAL SIN (Zephyr Publications) is likely the best. It can be ordered from Zephyr or from Light and Life Publications, both of which you can Google.
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Are you unable to answer my question, Lazar?
TrashHeapHedonist 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Where does sociopathy/psychopathy fit into your worldview; taking into account that the current data points to it being a genetic as opposed to a environmental phenomena?
TrashHeapHedonist 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Where does sociopathy/psychopathy fit into your worldview; taking into account that the current data points to it being a genetic as opposed to a environmental phenomena?
TrashHeapHedonist 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Where does sociopathy/psychopathy fit into your worldview; taking into account that the current data points to it being a genetic as opposed to a environmental phenomena?
TrashHeapHedonist 5 months ago
Yes there was a general suspicion about sex being sinful, but marriage is a sacrament! Guilt is not inherited through sex, which is the consummating sign of this sacrament.
MakeTheStand 5 months ago
@MakeTheStand Marriage became a sacrament in the West only in the 1200, and there was a great deal of debate about it at the time. When Augustine created the doctrine of Orig.Sin the magic seven had not yet been created. There is no doctrine of "Seven Sacraments" in the ancient Church. There is no such limit on the grace of the Holy Spirit. Marriage was said to be one of the Holy Mysteries in the East only in the 16th century, and then through Uniatism. But you see the internal contradictions
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
@MakeTheStand That overwhelm Western theology? Marriage is a ssacrament, but Original Guilt (Sin) is transmitted through the sexual relations that facilitate procreation? The late RC Archbishop of Vancouver once remarked to us that "now that the doctrine of Original Sin is in question, we no longer have an explanation for the baptism of infants."
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
@MakeTheStand Alas, Make, the doctrine of Or Sin is quite clearly stated to be passed on through the sexual relation that facillitates procreation. Earlier RC theorists advised couples to strive not to enjoy the sexual act, because the more they enjoyed it, the more guilt was trasmitted. I do not know what is being said in our era, but in earlier times, RCs were advised to feel a sense of remorse and regret during the sex act.
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
Haha omg this is ridiculous. This is the problem when criticising one Church from the other side, the facts are either misunderstood or just out dated. Yes, st Augustine believed that "in sin I was conceived in my mothers womb," and as influential as he is in the Western church, Rome doesn't uphold his philosophy about that. At least anymore. I'll admit that before the council of Trent and especially Vatican II this sex=sin mentality has been done away with.
MakeTheStand 5 months ago
@MakeTheStand True enough, and Vatican II brought some reality and truth into the RC Church, which is why so many RCs of the ultra Rightwing variety reject Vatican II as heretical.
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
When do expect part 2 to be up?
AelfredCyning 5 months ago
I was wondering how someone becoming evil is different from someone being evil and how that affects God's responsibility for the existence of evil. If someone becomes evil they were created by God with the capacity to do/become evil how does that absolve God's responsibility for creating evil.
To me it would be as if I rigged a bucked trap above a door and then claimed that I wasn't responsible for the existence of the subsequent puddle on the floor if someone waked through that door.
themanofearth 5 months ago
@themanofearth Lets look at Psychopathy for example: it appears that this state of "evil" results (at least often) from an overproduction of dopamine, which overwhelms the pre-frontal cortex regions that regulate social behaviour and curtail the drive for gratification. There are a number of neurobiological factors that can lead to a person doing evil things. Hitler and Stalin, for example, had real psychiatric illnesses, but the lust for absolute power was a force also.
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
@allsaintsmonastery I'm not sure how that addresses my question about God's (non)responsibility for evil. Is God not responsible for nature which, by definition, includes the neurobiological factors that can lead to a person doing evil things? Would that not be included in the creator building in the capacity for evil and then not claiming responsibility for evil when it is preformed like not claiming responsibility for the puddle after setting the bucket trap?
themanofearth 5 months ago
Genetic gene or chronsome...1st time I heard of that...again, I love that train passing. Had to see a street view where that RR is located...across the street from the monastery on Hawkins Pickle Road (couldn´t see the monastery bldgs because of the trees) .Nice to visit the area via google street views.
davidperi 5 months ago
Comment removed
davidperi 5 months ago
I think it is very important,this difference in theology.i not grasp the implications and differences in original sin / ancestrial sin,and there implications.So I hope we can hear very much moore about it,The Catholic Church believes a real Adam and Eve,but no such thing as some " some sort of guilt gene!? " i believe a jewish genetisist a decade ago traced conclusively,that all humans without acception,have been created by 2 parents! Please keep your eyes Open! Closed,is distrcting,looks t self
hermitofdw 5 months ago
@hermitofdw You would have to take that up with the Evangelical Protestant scientists, and you would also have to explain the Neandertal genes and why Africans do not have them, while those who had moved out of Africa do. I am not denying the historical Adam and Eve, but some significant Protestant scientist do, and they have some quite profound arguments in favour of that.
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
@hermitofdw The official statement of Original Sin is that the guilt is transmitted through the sex act, "concupisence". The sex act in marriage being a venial sin (Augustine declared that marriage is a venial sin, cloaked in a guise of respectability for the sake of procreation.) He also invented the notion of Original Sin, which has more in common with the Greek myth of Zagrios than with Scripture.
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@allsaintsmonastery "The official statement of Original Sin is that the guilt is transmitted through the sex act, "concupisence". The sex act in marriage being a venial sin"
This is pretty outrageous of you to claim. You must know that everything in the above is false and is not the teaching of "Rome."
BalladoftheWindfish 5 months ago
Hello, I am an atheist who enjoys some of your videos, its nice to see a highly educated theologian and dare I say philosopher of religion. My question would be, do you know about any roman catholic theologian on a similar intellectual level as yours here on youtube? I would like to have the correspondence between my ideas and those of major western religions. Thanks.
eydos 5 months ago
@eydos Father Barron wordonfirevideo is the channel. He is sort of a catholic equivalent.
greglee20 5 months ago
@greglee20 Thanks.
eydos 5 months ago
I think this would explain the fervent opposition towards evolution that we see among many Christians, because it essentially knocks down their entire belief system from Adam and Eve onwards. I personally don't believe in Christianity, and I can't claim to know whether God exists, but if I did believe in God I would not see any field of science as a threat to my beliefs.
BeautifulTruthShow 5 months ago
@BeautifulTruthShow Indeed. This would especially explain the Calvinist Fundamentalist hysteria about it. We also have some people who are hysterical about it; but evolution is a fact and all the hysteria and pseudo-science in the world will not change that reality. It is quite clear that two species of human arose independently of each other, and interbred. By the way, it is not illogical to surmise that the "giants" referred to in Genesis were the Neandertals, who also prac. canibalism.
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
@allsaintsmonastery Although I personally do not hold this view, I feel that acceptance of the current scientific model of the universe and life leads to a grander picture of God. Rather than a being who rather clumsily creates all things individually, we have a being who created a universe with laws that allow intelligent life to design itself without constant intervention. The ability for life to arise is written into the laws of the universe - this picture of God is far grander in my view.
BeautifulTruthShow 5 months ago
@BeautifulTruthShow More like the creation of a creative universe, in which the things created are themselves creative, and there is a synergy between the creation and the Creator. That would appear to be a significant concept of great merit.
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
I faved this video and I'm eagerly waiting for part 2 !
lapkine77 5 months ago
What the heck? This isn't the doctrine of original sin at all. It's polemics to think that Westerners believe in a guilt gene. Original sin is a spiritual link which by the same union provides salvation through Christ! Guilt gene....give me a break.
MakeTheStand 5 months ago
@MakeTheStand Didn't Saint Augustine argue that original sin was passed down to children through the conception's sexual act or something ? Knowledge of genetics didn't exist at the time, but please point out to me my errors, but doesn't that sound a bit like some kind of "Genetic Guilt" ?
Just asking.
lapkine77 5 months ago
@MakeTheStand No, they don't. Genes were not even known at the time the heresiarch Augustine whipped up this doctrine. However, since it is the sex act between husband and wife that transmits this "guilt," and the only way to transmit a quality from one generation to the other is genetic, you come up with a better explanation of how one transmit a generic guilt from one generation to another. We are all waiting for your explanation.
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
Beg you're pardon you're eminence but you have caricatured the western tradition of atonement. No Catholic or Anglican worth is his/her will say that the atonement promotes violence.
manutdfan4321 5 months ago
@manutdfan4321 They won't say it, but history has already demonnstrated that the neo-Pagan doctrine of Atonement promotes violence. It is noteworthy that when Anselm created this hideous docttrine just after the year A.D.1000, he based it on the medieval law regulating the duel. He, in fact, admitted that he could not accept the Traditional Christian doctrine: it did not have ramifications that would fit the dialectic of the law court.
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
After ProfMth made his video on this I watched a Catholic response, then I thought this is one for allsaintsmonastery to tackle and show how this issue really does not affect Orthodox theology at all. Now I opened my subscriptions and...YES. You are on top of things.
dlsbucur 5 months ago 2
@dlsbucur Yes it does, you may have watched his video incorrectly because his argument is that Paul was completely wrong about Adam and Eve being historical and if he is wrong about that why would you trust him about Jesus? I don't remember him mentioning Paul here.
adrenacrumb 5 months ago
@adrenacrumb If Christ is not risen then our faith is in vain. This is the most important historical claim of our faith. That Adam and Eve are true historical individuals does not affect my salvation in Christ.
nojoso 5 months ago
@nojoso What did he come back from the dead for? Your entire faith is based on a belief a Jewish guy rose from the dead 2000 years ago? Really, should that be all that important for someone to believe happened?
adrenacrumb 5 months ago
@nojoso Reason he came back from the dead doesn't matter at all? As long as his heart stopped and then he came back to life that's it, that's the entire religion, guy coming back to life?
adrenacrumb 5 months ago
@dlsbucur Actually I forgot Prof did that in 2 videos, you may not have seen his 2nd one that focuses on Paul.
adrenacrumb 5 months ago
We didn't need to wait for biology, common sense should have told you that. Why was Paul under the impression Adam and Eve were historical people? You okay with Paul being wrong?
adrenacrumb 5 months ago
@adrenacrumb I do think that people who have a very strong model of reality need more than common sense to make them aware that the model needs to be revised. Paul would have had no reason to doubt the story. In the end, one might take the story for its implications for mankind: the development of egoism and self-love. But as to the Ancestral Sin: no one inherits guilt. No one is born with hate, mallice of prejudice: we have to teach our children to hate, to have malice to have prejudices.
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
@allsaintsmonastery Yea but wasn't paul talking to Jesus all the time? You would think he would want to get that one right. Why would Paul be right about Jesus and completely wrong about other parts of the religion?
adrenacrumb 5 months ago
@adrenacrumb I did not touch that part of the issue, but you will notice that this was Part 1. Stay tuned.
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
@allsaintsmonastery So it does. Will stayed tuned in, interested in hearing the response on that issue.
adrenacrumb 5 months ago
@adrenacrumb Well, the scientific truth about human origins and generally about the way God created all things is not really "part of religion". Christ didn't come to teach the Apostles biology lessons, but spiritual ones. Had He been talking about Neanderthals and neutron stars to those people, His missionary work would have gained only a couple of stares and laughs. (On a side note: St. Paul never actually met Christ in human flesh to "talk to him all the time" the way we do, anyway ;) )
syonnain 5 months ago
@syonnain I'm not suggesting he was supposed to buff up Paul on biology, merely giving him the correct interpretation for the origins of the faith. If the most important figure of the religion after Christ can't even properly understand the religion what does that say about the bible? I don't know where you are getting I am trying to claim this is about any scientific knowledge, it is the very foundation of the religion.
adrenacrumb 5 months ago
@adrenacrumb I'm suggesting that maybe... just maybe... you have a wrong impression about what Orthodoxy really is about. Because no father of the Church, saint, or even sincere believer considers the process by which God created all things and humans to be "the very foundation of" Orthodoxy". Knowing of this process doesn't make you a better, kinder person, doesn't fill you with love and desire to help others; it has no role in achieving the goals of faith. So how can it be a central thing?
syonnain 5 months ago
@syonnain Alright well Orthodoxy must mean you believe whatever you want then, so that's a cool religion. I would love to see the biblical basis for its 'beliefs'. You would think since Paul believed Adam and Eve were crucial to the religion that would mean something but I guess Orthodoxy means believe whatever you want when the bible says something you don't like.
adrenacrumb 5 months ago
Also,you should grasp the fact that you say “Jesus should have told Paul this and Paul should have said that” with a mind and a worldview modeled by centuries of rationalistic,scientific civilization. But the world was very different back then,for the first Christians,and they had other priorities and gave different importance to things than we do know now. So,before saying what we think is the foundation of their faith,we have to try to get into their way of thinking and experiencing the faith.
syonnain 5 months ago
@syonnain So not a problem Paul was completely misrepresenting the entire point of Christianity and salvation according to what you are telling me are Orthodox views? Fair enough, just toss out whatever you want and make it be about what you want, who needs guidelines right?
adrenacrumb 5 months ago
@syonnain I've just converted to Orthodoxy. Since I can pretty much do whatever I want hell is just as cool as heaven now except they don't have cake, so that's no longer a problem. Salvation depends on how many bananas you eat a day not that works or believing in Jesus stuff. Believing in Jesus is actually a penalty now.
adrenacrumb 5 months ago
@adrenacrumb You're funny, man... You're also intelectually dishonest if you reached these conclusions about Orthodoxy from what I said... But good sense of humour, though... Take care :)
syonnain 5 months ago
@syonnain I'm starting to think Orthodoxy is just a practical joke because anytime theres a problem the answer has always been basically you can just pretty much believe whatever you want but then when I hear the services it sounds just like normal Christianity.
adrenacrumb 5 months ago
@adrenacrumb So we do not pass on a genetic guilt, but through our example and what we teach our children, we certainly do pass on egoism and self-focus, hatred, malice, prejudices and even violence. These are aspects of the stories of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel and the polygamos Lamech. These are the stories of each of us and all of us. There is a useful insight into the fundamental problems of humanity. We can even say that Christ strove the free us from our egoism, arrogance and violence.
allsaintsmonastery 5 months ago
@adrenacrumb
I am ok with Paul being wrong... and not only wrong but even a sinner like all of us, and yet a saint. Sainthood has nothing to do with infallibility and sinlessness. Saints are not infallible nor sinless, only Christ was such. Do not take sainthood as some kind of far eastern guru-type enlightenment...
telisna 5 months ago
@telisna Why are you going to trust everything he said about Jesus then?
adrenacrumb 5 months ago
@telisna I mean there really isn't too much left in Christianity if you take out Paul's writing. Your entiree tradition might be screwed up.
adrenacrumb 5 months ago
@adrenacrumb
hey adrenacrumb, it seems you 've no idea about "my tradition", I don't trust what Paul said, I trust what Matthew, Luke, John, Mark and Paul etc. said together with the consensus of each generation after generation together with the affirmation of those who have a living relationship with God, thus I don't trust a book but the Church. But in order to understand that you should read what is "Church" in Ancient Undivided Christianism and still is in Orthodox Christianism.
telisna 5 months ago
@telisna I promise not all of your traditions come from the gospels alone. How l long have you been in this religion?
adrenacrumb 5 months ago
@adrenacrumb
I cannot really understand what you are trying to say. Anyway some clarifications: The gospels and the New Testament are part of the Holy Tradition but we don't consider them infallible in the way muslims believe Quran is a copy of a divine book thus infallible. That's why we have 4 gospels and not just 1. "How long I've been to this religion": I am greek thus orthodox, but I 'd say that I started discovering what orthodoxy is really about since 20 years and it is not a religion.
telisna 5 months ago
@telisna Okay well I'm obviously not going to get much out of you, anyone that goes mental from asking them a simple question is too dogmatic in the faith to speak with reasonably. If it's not a religion then there is no such thing as a religion. Have fun with that.
adrenacrumb 5 months ago
@adrenacrumb
/watch?v=4yZijfXHzKU
check that regarding religion. "go mental"? I cannot understand the expression... well dogmatic is a subjective opinion of yours... may be true... I don't feel that way...
telisna 5 months ago
I just saw what "go mental" means... I wonder why you felt that way really... anyway...
telisna 5 months ago
@telisna~ hey adrenacrumb, it seems you 've no idea about "my tradition", ~ it means typing something like that. I can already tell that video is wrong, no one defines religion the way it is described in the boxas appeasing Gods. Buddhism is a religion and they don't even have Gods so that video is useless.
adrenacrumb 5 months ago
@adrenacrumb
well ok sorry for that phrase, but I felt it was needed to make clear that you are talking about something different than "my tradition". About buddhism: of course nirayana buddhism is not a religion but you see people have such a need for religions that turned even buddhism into a religion by mahayana. The same goes with Christianity... in case you spend some time to watch the videos at that channel you will understand what I mean even though you probably disagree with me...
telisna 5 months ago
@telisna "Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and moral values."
That's the definition of religion. You don't normally just get to define things however you want.
adrenacrumb 5 months ago
@adrenacrumb
well, discussing about definitions is not so fruitful. In case you want to use the word religion for nirayana or orthodoxy that's ok with me, I will understand what you mean. But please allow me not using the word religion for nirayana for example since I consider it to be a philosophy.
telisna 5 months ago
@telisna Mental means crazy, going off for no reason.
adrenacrumb 5 months ago