If The God is sustaining universe now, then is there any chance people might sometimes stump upon direct intervention, or are we to expect something like an uncertainty principle in psychology, neurology and other sciences? I mean, could a scientific case be made against the pagan notion of fate wrapped in a scientific cloth, known as naturalistic determinism?
Thank you for your what you said, it dose give me some peace of mind, I been having a hard time with this and faith, thank you when you said things are changing, God is still at work, change the world and galaxy. So yes its not against the faith to say things can change. On can simply look at rain and what it dose to land, or how rivers change over time.
And God gave the people in the old times what try needed, to know.
If the Bible is not reality then neither is Christianity! You might as well become a buddhist. I am ashamed that you call yourself a Christian!! No wonder the orthodox church embraces the United Nations! When the day comes you will worship the anti-christ! Unless you repent now!
@mannaz1988 If you are a Bible Literalists, then you are not a believer, only an ideologue. If you would insist on literalism in the Old Testament, then Christianity is completely unsustainable. If you can only believe on the basis of falsehood and unsustainable ideology, then you do not believe at all, you merely hold a blind ideology that has no connection with Christ. The earth is 4.5 Billion years old, like it or not, you cannot change that.
@mannaz1988 Do not be absurd. The earliest Theologians taught that Genesis should not be read literally. Going all the way to Onkelos. In fact, the Jews would not let anybody read the book of Genesis unless they had reached the age of 30 simply because it was so theolgoically rich with deep messages that you needed to be mature enough to understand it.
So if I get this right, the creation stories of the Sumerians, Persians and Babylonians were condensed in the Bible, not to be taken literally, but metaphorically or allegorically.
Then does the same go for the creation of Adam+Eve, the Flood and then later Jesus? All just examples for a message which a god is trying to convey?
What is the reason then to believe in a god when all these messages are contained within morality of society? Then we can abolish the fear and threat system of churches.
@StopSpamming1 If your Church is threatening you or making you afraid, then I think you should think about finding a new Church... or challenging the members of your own.
@StopSpamming1 You said: "What is the reason then to believe in a god when all these messages are contained within morality of society? Then we can abolish the fear and threat system of churches." I didn't mean to be rude. Sorry if it came across that way.
@StopSpamming1 You seemed to me to be suggesting that all churches use fear and threats - by that I take it you mean punishment and reward in regards to Heaven and hell - to guide people towards Christ. As His Eminence clearly demonstrates, not all churches are that way inclined. That is all. What do you mean by "Good. At least you are trying." Trying what?
Well, I must have worded it ambiguously. Yes, punishment and reward in regards to heaven and hell - but not only. In Islam you get minus and bonus points. In Christianity you need to accept gods with children and ghosts. All religions use child talk to frighten them and keep them there even as adults - without ever growing up. What grown-up adult can accept concepts like "sin", "free will" or "omnipotent"?
@StopSpamming1 I can't speak for Islam - nor am I particularly concerned with Islam: I am not a Muslim. I think you have been either tormented or harmed (or both) b religious people. That is sad. But I think a confrontational approach performs just as poorly. Even if a few, or some, or even most Christians behave abominably, this does not invalidate the Gospel message. And having a belief in strange things is not only limited to religion. It is also an aspect of reality.
thanks for this, Father! I had the worst time dealing with biology class last year. I didn't know how to develope an Orthodox understanding of creation, or really even what the Orthodox understanding of science would be. some Protestants go to far as to say (as you mentioned) that the earth was created in a number of days, and some go so far as to say that science is a hoax.
you've really helped me. I didn't know how to view science from an Orthodox mindset.
@1000years1day Scientist do make mistakes. The worst one are in medicine. This is why we do not accept anything that is not peer reviewed and proved to be "repeatable" by different groups of scientist, not merely once or twice, but several times, and under various circumstances. If you will make a careful study, you will find that scientist who make gross errors or attempt fraud are always exposed, ether my the integrity or the envy of fellow scientists.
I think that the Orthodox Church should be a review. Should meet all Orthodox Patriarchs and to agree on this. That is the problem of the Orthodox Church, which does not meet everyone and put all agree.
Who are right?? It was a error of Publishing Of the ROCOR or Really Orthodox Church Deny Human Evolution. Thats all i want to know, beacuse, if it is true that Orthodox Church Deny Evolution, People will get away from the Church, because it is a no-accpetance the Modern Sciences.
@allsaintsmonastery jajajaja. I am very happy to find you as a Priest who accept sciences always thinking in God, like me. So you agree with evolution as I do and modern science. But what think the other Orthodox churches ? Apparently, you are a realist and will not be blind to the truth of modern science. Then there are the Orthodox Patriarchate that if agreements with the Evolution, as in the case of yours. I guess you belong to the OCA.
@CristiandadRevelada Because, in the Orthodox Church, the point is "a matter of opinion." There is no specific doctrine in the Orthodox Church except that God created all that exists. How, and over what time frame He created is not an issue. One is free to believe or no accept evolution. Those who are ultra-conservative will deny evolution, those who still have their brains working will not be concerned about it.
I found information about the humans if UK, But that does not deny evolution. Remember that planet earth has over 4,500 million years and recently found a common ancestor of us aged 45 million years. Archaeological data supporting evolution. I am a medical student. All contemporary medicine is based on evolution.
@CristiandadRevelada There is no possible way to do modern medicine without the concept of evolution. Evolution is a fact of life and part of the reality we deal with daily. Those who deny human evolution are "whistling past the graveyard." When people do not have enough faith to cope with reality, they retreat into blind ideologies. Their faith is not based in truth but in ideologies that are simply not true. Evolution of human species is a fact and a reality of life.
Excuse me, but I was a roman catholic boy, but now I am orthodox Christian. So the Orthodox Church believes that God created Adam and Eve as narrated the book of Genesis? and there was no evolution, but rather that the earth takes millions of years to form, but there was no human evolution?
@CristiandadRevelada Mankind is certainly the creation by God. There can be no life without the will of God bestowing it. While Adam and Eve are the purposeful creation by God, one can deny evolution of species only from an ideologiacal point of view, not from a true and real point of view. There have been more than one species of humans. One can deny that, but no successfully, because it happens to be true. Nevertheless, there can be no life without the will of God giving it.
I have to make a question. Why the ROCOR dont believe in Darwing Theory??? Why???? The people who began to read this about Darwing will get away from the Orthodox Church beacause it is a ignorance to the Modern Sciences. Also, you can you see that there are a lot of Orthodox Brothers who continue ignoring sciences. A Example is the men of the channel I send you, who are against Darwirng Theory.
@CristiandadRevelada Researchers have discovered stone tools in Norfolk, UK, that suggest that early humans arrived in Britain nearly a million years ago - or even earlier.
The find, published in the journal Nature, pushes back the arrival of the first humans in what is now the UK by several hundred thousand years.
@CristiandadRevelada By the way, we have come a long way since Darwin. Darwin saw mostly evollution within various species. We have seen this within the Chinese population, with Tibetans having evolved the ability to live and function at high altitudes. The accumulation of such adaptations creates evolution. Without it, Tibetans and Bhutanese, etc, could not live in such high altituded.. This changes genes in the body, and the genes are passed on. Some species do not adapt and die off.
@allsaintsmonastery I have a question of exactly how much you believe in evollution, Because if we came from animals who do not have souls (atleast i was told this by many Orthodox priests) then from what point did we gain the gift of a soul? This is in no way a challenge only a question on how to accept both Theology and Sci
@Nickbully It is always an interesting question. At what point did God breath the soul into man and give him the possibility of immortality by Grace? I suggest that there was an actual Adam and Eve, and since the words mean "first man" and "first woman," then clearly they would be the ones who received a soul and became truly human. I have no doubts about that, but that the process of evolution took place until God's will introduced a human soul is clearly the truth.
@allsaintsmonastery You are right. "Adam" refers to the firts humans who become to be truly and really human. But, these who ignore sciences are not much open to reality. Creationists are not very open to reality. Thanks for yours tips.
@CristiandadRevelada I believe that the case will be just the opposite. Those who deny science and evolution, when consistently faced with reality, will gradually lose faith altogether and become atheists.
I hold to the same view that Clement of Alexandria held, that science came from the barbarian cultures and was invented by the Devil. However God used some of it for good.
well as far as I know, Clement also believed in Universalism a belief that even the Devil will be saved, which was condemned by Ecumenical council, dont pick and choose.
@HeroesofApostasy Likely all the Asiatics in Egypt were booted out at the same time. The "booting out of the Asiatics" certainly did happen. Doubtless it included Hittites and assorted other "sand drifters."
@allsaintsmonastery - Egypt also lost control of and had campaigns in Canaan did they not? Jericho probably actually fell to them. I'm in agreement that the TaNaKh is probably an exaggerated account of some factual history of the area, of course we'd have many disagreements on the exact interpretation of that.
@HeroesofApostasy It was pretty standard temple architecture, built with pretty standard over-taxation of the populace. Like most governments, Solomon's was a "kleptocracy."
@allsaintsmonastery - I agree, it was a "state" temple no doubt. It is my belief that the average common folks never even made pilgrimages to that temple, probably reserved for the aristocracy, priestly caste, literati, and royalty. Most (poor illiterate farmers) would have practiced their religions locally (family) and in their nearby communities "high places" in scripture like in Dan and Lachish. That's why I smell foul with the Priestly and Deuteronomist texts as state propaganda.
@allsaintsmonastery The problem really lies in the fact that such people are so crippled in their dependency on their "models of reality," that they cannot cope with truth and actual reality. Because of this, they completely miss the "meaning" of what has been said, and then use what they "think" has been said in an often cruel and malicious way."
@tgz1000 What is wrong with what you said is that you, first of all, accuse all scienctist of being Marxist, which is absurd in the extreme. Secondly, you suggest that,because science completes the story of Creation, that all scientists therefore, do not understand that God created the heavens and the earth . I have yet to meet a Cosmologist who is an atheist or a Marxist. Being a scientist does not automatically make one a Marxist, though you suggest that it does. Of course, God created.
@allsaintsmonastery The fact that He did not do it the way YOU wanted Him to do it is what is troubling you. Many scientists are very sincere and deep believers, and would never suggest that God did not create all that exist. It is to suggest that the Genesis narrative is scientifically accurate that is wrong, and not altogether sane, since we clearly know that it is not.
@tgz1000 You know very well that that is not what was being said. Of course people a great deal more intelligent than you know that there is a creator. Raving like a nut case about "Marxist scientists" is not at all intelligent; it is a bit looney.
It would be totally useless if someone were to demonstrate me that God exist using mathematic formulas, but instead my heart would be cold and insensible to other peoples around me. He is foremost Love. May He first give us all a warm heart to feel compassion and love for each other, and only after the the eyes and the knowledge to understand His great work. God bless us all.
@Darchange1 True. We "see" God with eyes that are beyond the physical, and we "know" God with a knowledge that is beyond knowledge: but we DO see and know God.
But as you said, vladka, God gave men, only what He knew was necessary to men kind at a certain period of time. The sad part is that so many peoples try to analyze everything using their brain, but never feeling anything, never actually experiencing God as a true person that you can actually communicate with, and share feelings with. God is not a scientific concept. He is a person. And in my opinion the best way to get closer to Him is using our hearts instead of just our brain.
It is my opinion, that at some point, these peoples, that are fundamentalists, would fall into heresy if not atheism, if they would really understand the scientific truth. And i have seen a lot of peoples that take either science's side, either Bible's side (literally Bible), without thinking that God is the beginning of all science and all knowledge, and all that we discover today through science is actually part of God.
@Darchange1 One does not have to take "one side or the other," since the Scripture is about meaning, and not about things that would fall in the scope of Science. However, Fundamentalists are bound to become either heretics or atheists because the have faith in their own models or reality rather than in God.
Hello, allsaintsmonastery. I'm so glad I found your channel.
A question. Do you know of any relationship between Hesychasm as it is practiced now and how it was practiced by the Presocratic Greeks such as Parmenides and Epimenides?
@Barklord I would have to study that a bit before I could write on it. I taught a class in the concept of change and permanence in the Pre-Socratic philosophers, but I did not see much evidence of the meditation techniques used. One problem about the era is that the Pythagorians were quite secretive in many areas. If you have any references, I would be glad to hear about them.
My understanding is that a tradition of Hesychia existed that was practiced by Parmenides. They would practice stillness for healing and visionary insight for their laws. Out of this also came Zeno's (Parmenides' student) paradoxes such as Achilles and the Tortoise which clearly shows that the measurement of motion in space is also a measurement of time because they are inseparable aspects of The One.
@Barklord That makes sense. Xeno's Four Paradoxes also are the earliest form I have seen of the Uncertainty Principle, which does not seem to have appeared again until Heisenberg. The fact that you cannot know the speed and the location of the arrow at the same time, for example. I will look into this. In my book THE EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN I did mention that q physics and Orth. theology use the same methods. It would not be surprising if the pre-soc. had also used similar methods. Than you
That's a great title for your book. Was it inspired by the definition of Faith in Hebrews 11: 1-3 ? I use this passage to point out that a new conception of divinity allowed for science to blossom more rapidly. Also, a Hermetic passage in Book One says:
"That in you which sees and hears is the word (Logos) of the lord. But Mind (Nous) is God the Father. They are not divided, for their union is life."
@celestiallobotomy That would explain the psychosis shadowed into his correspondence with me. Apologist 117 displays a clinical psychosis in much of his presentation and writing.
If it happened like so, it would have been a completely supernatural act of special creation which could not be proved or disproved without being there as an eyewitness.
@chukmaty Regardless, the whole Creation was and is a supernatural act. Much of the meaning of it is revealed to us through parables and stories. Without the meaning, but taken only literally, none of it makes any sense. The meaning is the focus.
@phfrankh However one wishes to take it, the story is a prophecy about the Church coming from Christ and being sanctified by His blood. By the way, "female" is the default gender and default brain-wiring for all known species. In some species, the male is a mere appendix of the female.
@allsaintsmonastery Thankh you for your reply,very interesting! the female being the default gender. I often witness in nature how early the "brain wiring/nervous system" is developed via the female gender. Also, I often related the story of Adam & Eve as a state of spiritual consciousness.
Since science is empirical observation, the following questiion comes to mind: If Genesis contained the most advanced scientific facts about the universe and it's beginning, couldn't atheists simply reply that it wasn't God who gave the hebrews that knowledge, but that they simply gained that knowledge by observation?
I'd assert, that revelation has to be about man and God, since that is something we cannot empirically find out and know for ourselves. What do you think?
@psevdhome Precisely so. The whole of the revelation in Genesis is about man's condition, relation to God, to the earth, to other human beings, and his own "self." It also demonstrates to us the difference between the essence and hypostasis of man.
Father what do you mean by creationists having an ideology instead of a faith in Christ?
MrBrendaneoin22 3 weeks ago
Your eminence.
If The God is sustaining universe now, then is there any chance people might sometimes stump upon direct intervention, or are we to expect something like an uncertainty principle in psychology, neurology and other sciences? I mean, could a scientific case be made against the pagan notion of fate wrapped in a scientific cloth, known as naturalistic determinism?
giorgiv18 3 months ago
Thank you for your what you said, it dose give me some peace of mind, I been having a hard time with this and faith, thank you when you said things are changing, God is still at work, change the world and galaxy. So yes its not against the faith to say things can change. On can simply look at rain and what it dose to land, or how rivers change over time.
And God gave the people in the old times what try needed, to know.
Thank you.
DeepvoiceED 1 year ago
If the Bible is not reality then neither is Christianity! You might as well become a buddhist. I am ashamed that you call yourself a Christian!! No wonder the orthodox church embraces the United Nations! When the day comes you will worship the anti-christ! Unless you repent now!
mannaz1988 1 year ago
@mannaz1988 If you are a Bible Literalists, then you are not a believer, only an ideologue. If you would insist on literalism in the Old Testament, then Christianity is completely unsustainable. If you can only believe on the basis of falsehood and unsustainable ideology, then you do not believe at all, you merely hold a blind ideology that has no connection with Christ. The earth is 4.5 Billion years old, like it or not, you cannot change that.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago 8
@mannaz1988 Do not be absurd. The earliest Theologians taught that Genesis should not be read literally. Going all the way to Onkelos. In fact, the Jews would not let anybody read the book of Genesis unless they had reached the age of 30 simply because it was so theolgoically rich with deep messages that you needed to be mature enough to understand it.
AegeanKing 8 months ago
Because of the relativity of time, at the 'edge' of the universe - it is still day 1
Billosophical777 1 year ago
So if I get this right, the creation stories of the Sumerians, Persians and Babylonians were condensed in the Bible, not to be taken literally, but metaphorically or allegorically.
Then does the same go for the creation of Adam+Eve, the Flood and then later Jesus? All just examples for a message which a god is trying to convey?
What is the reason then to believe in a god when all these messages are contained within morality of society? Then we can abolish the fear and threat system of churches.
StopSpamming1 1 year ago
@StopSpamming1 If your Church is threatening you or making you afraid, then I think you should think about finding a new Church... or challenging the members of your own.
akrifasouth 4 months ago
@akrifasouth
What? How? Huh? Maybe read my comment again and try to understand just 10%.
StopSpamming1 4 months ago
@StopSpamming1 You said: "What is the reason then to believe in a god when all these messages are contained within morality of society? Then we can abolish the fear and threat system of churches." I didn't mean to be rude. Sorry if it came across that way.
akrifasouth 4 months ago
@akrifasouth
Good! At least you are trying.
Now, just to be sure: could you tell me what you understand I mean with that sentence and the churches?
StopSpamming1 4 months ago
@StopSpamming1 You seemed to me to be suggesting that all churches use fear and threats - by that I take it you mean punishment and reward in regards to Heaven and hell - to guide people towards Christ. As His Eminence clearly demonstrates, not all churches are that way inclined. That is all. What do you mean by "Good. At least you are trying." Trying what?
akrifasouth 4 months ago
@akrifasouth
} "Trying what? "
To understand and work on something. Most don't.
Well, I must have worded it ambiguously. Yes, punishment and reward in regards to heaven and hell - but not only. In Islam you get minus and bonus points. In Christianity you need to accept gods with children and ghosts. All religions use child talk to frighten them and keep them there even as adults - without ever growing up. What grown-up adult can accept concepts like "sin", "free will" or "omnipotent"?
StopSpamming1 4 months ago
@StopSpamming1 I can't speak for Islam - nor am I particularly concerned with Islam: I am not a Muslim. I think you have been either tormented or harmed (or both) b religious people. That is sad. But I think a confrontational approach performs just as poorly. Even if a few, or some, or even most Christians behave abominably, this does not invalidate the Gospel message. And having a belief in strange things is not only limited to religion. It is also an aspect of reality.
akrifasouth 4 months ago
@akrifasouth
} "I think you have been either tormented or harmed"
How about what really happened: I grew up.
StopSpamming1 4 months ago
All right. By-bye now.
akrifasouth 4 months ago
thanks for this, Father! I had the worst time dealing with biology class last year. I didn't know how to develope an Orthodox understanding of creation, or really even what the Orthodox understanding of science would be. some Protestants go to far as to say (as you mentioned) that the earth was created in a number of days, and some go so far as to say that science is a hoax.
you've really helped me. I didn't know how to view science from an Orthodox mindset.
thanks! God bless!
tmh726 1 year ago
@1000years1day Scientist do make mistakes. The worst one are in medicine. This is why we do not accept anything that is not peer reviewed and proved to be "repeatable" by different groups of scientist, not merely once or twice, but several times, and under various circumstances. If you will make a careful study, you will find that scientist who make gross errors or attempt fraud are always exposed, ether my the integrity or the envy of fellow scientists.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago 5
I think that the Orthodox Church should be a review. Should meet all Orthodox Patriarchs and to agree on this. That is the problem of the Orthodox Church, which does not meet everyone and put all agree.
CristiandadRevelada 1 year ago
Who are right?? It was a error of Publishing Of the ROCOR or Really Orthodox Church Deny Human Evolution. Thats all i want to know, beacuse, if it is true that Orthodox Church Deny Evolution, People will get away from the Church, because it is a no-accpetance the Modern Sciences.
CristiandadRevelada 1 year ago
@CristiandadRevelada ROCOR is an ultra-conservative, Fundamentalists organisation, not very much open to reality.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
@allsaintsmonastery jajajaja. I am very happy to find you as a Priest who accept sciences always thinking in God, like me. So you agree with evolution as I do and modern science. But what think the other Orthodox churches ? Apparently, you are a realist and will not be blind to the truth of modern science. Then there are the Orthodox Patriarchate that if agreements with the Evolution, as in the case of yours. I guess you belong to the OCA.
CristiandadRevelada 1 year ago
Roman Catholic Church dont deny evolution. I dont deny Evolution. Why Ortodox Church Deny Evolution Theory?
CristiandadRevelada 1 year ago
@CristiandadRevelada Because, in the Orthodox Church, the point is "a matter of opinion." There is no specific doctrine in the Orthodox Church except that God created all that exists. How, and over what time frame He created is not an issue. One is free to believe or no accept evolution. Those who are ultra-conservative will deny evolution, those who still have their brains working will not be concerned about it.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
I found information about the humans if UK, But that does not deny evolution. Remember that planet earth has over 4,500 million years and recently found a common ancestor of us aged 45 million years. Archaeological data supporting evolution. I am a medical student. All contemporary medicine is based on evolution.
CristiandadRevelada 1 year ago
@CristiandadRevelada There is no possible way to do modern medicine without the concept of evolution. Evolution is a fact of life and part of the reality we deal with daily. Those who deny human evolution are "whistling past the graveyard." When people do not have enough faith to cope with reality, they retreat into blind ideologies. Their faith is not based in truth but in ideologies that are simply not true. Evolution of human species is a fact and a reality of life.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
Excuse me, but I was a roman catholic boy, but now I am orthodox Christian. So the Orthodox Church believes that God created Adam and Eve as narrated the book of Genesis? and there was no evolution, but rather that the earth takes millions of years to form, but there was no human evolution?
CristiandadRevelada 1 year ago
@CristiandadRevelada Mankind is certainly the creation by God. There can be no life without the will of God bestowing it. While Adam and Eve are the purposeful creation by God, one can deny evolution of species only from an ideologiacal point of view, not from a true and real point of view. There have been more than one species of humans. One can deny that, but no successfully, because it happens to be true. Nevertheless, there can be no life without the will of God giving it.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
I have to make a question. Why the ROCOR dont believe in Darwing Theory??? Why???? The people who began to read this about Darwing will get away from the Orthodox Church beacause it is a ignorance to the Modern Sciences. Also, you can you see that there are a lot of Orthodox Brothers who continue ignoring sciences. A Example is the men of the channel I send you, who are against Darwirng Theory.
CristiandadRevelada 1 year ago
@CristiandadRevelada Researchers have discovered stone tools in Norfolk, UK, that suggest that early humans arrived in Britain nearly a million years ago - or even earlier.
The find, published in the journal Nature, pushes back the arrival of the first humans in what is now the UK by several hundred thousand years.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
@allsaintsmonastery Could you can give me information about this??? A wedsise or something like that??
CristiandadRevelada 1 year ago
@CristiandadRevelada By the way, we have come a long way since Darwin. Darwin saw mostly evollution within various species. We have seen this within the Chinese population, with Tibetans having evolved the ability to live and function at high altitudes. The accumulation of such adaptations creates evolution. Without it, Tibetans and Bhutanese, etc, could not live in such high altituded.. This changes genes in the body, and the genes are passed on. Some species do not adapt and die off.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
@allsaintsmonastery I have a question of exactly how much you believe in evollution, Because if we came from animals who do not have souls (atleast i was told this by many Orthodox priests) then from what point did we gain the gift of a soul? This is in no way a challenge only a question on how to accept both Theology and Sci
Nickbully 1 year ago
@Nickbully It is always an interesting question. At what point did God breath the soul into man and give him the possibility of immortality by Grace? I suggest that there was an actual Adam and Eve, and since the words mean "first man" and "first woman," then clearly they would be the ones who received a soul and became truly human. I have no doubts about that, but that the process of evolution took place until God's will introduced a human soul is clearly the truth.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
@allsaintsmonastery You are right. "Adam" refers to the firts humans who become to be truly and really human. But, these who ignore sciences are not much open to reality. Creationists are not very open to reality. Thanks for yours tips.
CristiandadRevelada 1 year ago
@CristiandadRevelada I believe that the case will be just the opposite. Those who deny science and evolution, when consistently faced with reality, will gradually lose faith altogether and become atheists.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
I hold to the same view that Clement of Alexandria held, that science came from the barbarian cultures and was invented by the Devil. However God used some of it for good.
OrthodoxVideos 1 year ago
@OrthodoxVideos
well as far as I know, Clement also believed in Universalism a belief that even the Devil will be saved, which was condemned by Ecumenical council, dont pick and choose.
Andrey9992 1 year ago
@OrthodoxVideos Was not Clement one of the men who taught that much of the Old Testament was allegory, and not fact?
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
@allsaintsmonastery - What do you mean by "Asiatics?" The Apiru? The Haburu? The Hyksos?
HeroesofApostasy 1 year ago
@HeroesofApostasy Likely all the Asiatics in Egypt were booted out at the same time. The "booting out of the Asiatics" certainly did happen. Doubtless it included Hittites and assorted other "sand drifters."
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
@allsaintsmonastery - Egypt also lost control of and had campaigns in Canaan did they not? Jericho probably actually fell to them. I'm in agreement that the TaNaKh is probably an exaggerated account of some factual history of the area, of course we'd have many disagreements on the exact interpretation of that.
HeroesofApostasy 1 year ago
@allsaintsmonastery - The Hittites........I find it most interesting that Solomon's Temple is almost an exact copy of the Temple at Ain Dara.
HeroesofApostasy 1 year ago
@HeroesofApostasy It was pretty standard temple architecture, built with pretty standard over-taxation of the populace. Like most governments, Solomon's was a "kleptocracy."
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
@allsaintsmonastery - I agree, it was a "state" temple no doubt. It is my belief that the average common folks never even made pilgrimages to that temple, probably reserved for the aristocracy, priestly caste, literati, and royalty. Most (poor illiterate farmers) would have practiced their religions locally (family) and in their nearby communities "high places" in scripture like in Dan and Lachish. That's why I smell foul with the Priestly and Deuteronomist texts as state propaganda.
HeroesofApostasy 1 year ago
@HeroesofApostasy Bears looking into, but this is not the proper venue for it.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
@allsaintsmonastery The problem really lies in the fact that such people are so crippled in their dependency on their "models of reality," that they cannot cope with truth and actual reality. Because of this, they completely miss the "meaning" of what has been said, and then use what they "think" has been said in an often cruel and malicious way."
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
@tgz1000 I don't think you are listening very well. Maybe you should watch the video again carefully, and read the comments carefully.
mikejhm 1 year ago
@tgz1000 What is wrong with what you said is that you, first of all, accuse all scienctist of being Marxist, which is absurd in the extreme. Secondly, you suggest that,because science completes the story of Creation, that all scientists therefore, do not understand that God created the heavens and the earth . I have yet to meet a Cosmologist who is an atheist or a Marxist. Being a scientist does not automatically make one a Marxist, though you suggest that it does. Of course, God created.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
@allsaintsmonastery The fact that He did not do it the way YOU wanted Him to do it is what is troubling you. Many scientists are very sincere and deep believers, and would never suggest that God did not create all that exist. It is to suggest that the Genesis narrative is scientifically accurate that is wrong, and not altogether sane, since we clearly know that it is not.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
@tgz1000 You know very well that that is not what was being said. Of course people a great deal more intelligent than you know that there is a creator. Raving like a nut case about "Marxist scientists" is not at all intelligent; it is a bit looney.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
It would be totally useless if someone were to demonstrate me that God exist using mathematic formulas, but instead my heart would be cold and insensible to other peoples around me. He is foremost Love. May He first give us all a warm heart to feel compassion and love for each other, and only after the the eyes and the knowledge to understand His great work. God bless us all.
Darchange1 1 year ago
@Darchange1 True. We "see" God with eyes that are beyond the physical, and we "know" God with a knowledge that is beyond knowledge: but we DO see and know God.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
But as you said, vladka, God gave men, only what He knew was necessary to men kind at a certain period of time. The sad part is that so many peoples try to analyze everything using their brain, but never feeling anything, never actually experiencing God as a true person that you can actually communicate with, and share feelings with. God is not a scientific concept. He is a person. And in my opinion the best way to get closer to Him is using our hearts instead of just our brain.
Darchange1 1 year ago
It is my opinion, that at some point, these peoples, that are fundamentalists, would fall into heresy if not atheism, if they would really understand the scientific truth. And i have seen a lot of peoples that take either science's side, either Bible's side (literally Bible), without thinking that God is the beginning of all science and all knowledge, and all that we discover today through science is actually part of God.
Darchange1 1 year ago
@Darchange1 One does not have to take "one side or the other," since the Scripture is about meaning, and not about things that would fall in the scope of Science. However, Fundamentalists are bound to become either heretics or atheists because the have faith in their own models or reality rather than in God.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
Hello, allsaintsmonastery. I'm so glad I found your channel.
A question. Do you know of any relationship between Hesychasm as it is practiced now and how it was practiced by the Presocratic Greeks such as Parmenides and Epimenides?
Barklord 1 year ago
@Barklord I would have to study that a bit before I could write on it. I taught a class in the concept of change and permanence in the Pre-Socratic philosophers, but I did not see much evidence of the meditation techniques used. One problem about the era is that the Pythagorians were quite secretive in many areas. If you have any references, I would be glad to hear about them.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
@allsaintsmonastery
My understanding is that a tradition of Hesychia existed that was practiced by Parmenides. They would practice stillness for healing and visionary insight for their laws. Out of this also came Zeno's (Parmenides' student) paradoxes such as Achilles and the Tortoise which clearly shows that the measurement of motion in space is also a measurement of time because they are inseparable aspects of The One.
Barklord 1 year ago
@Barklord That makes sense. Xeno's Four Paradoxes also are the earliest form I have seen of the Uncertainty Principle, which does not seem to have appeared again until Heisenberg. The fact that you cannot know the speed and the location of the arrow at the same time, for example. I will look into this. In my book THE EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN I did mention that q physics and Orth. theology use the same methods. It would not be surprising if the pre-soc. had also used similar methods. Than you
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
@Barklord Thank you so much for bringing this up. It is a fascinatiing idea, which I will pursue.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
@allsaintsmonastery THE EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN
That's a great title for your book. Was it inspired by the definition of Faith in Hebrews 11: 1-3 ? I use this passage to point out that a new conception of divinity allowed for science to blossom more rapidly. Also, a Hermetic passage in Book One says:
"That in you which sees and hears is the word (Logos) of the lord. But Mind (Nous) is God the Father. They are not divided, for their union is life."
This eliminates the mind/body duality.
Barklord 1 year ago
@allsaintsmonastery
Peter Kingsley is the pre-Socratic scholar that has most inspired this course of study for me.
Barklord 1 year ago
OrthodoxVideos is Apologist117 under a new name
celestiallobotomy 1 year ago
@celestiallobotomy That would explain the psychosis shadowed into his correspondence with me. Apologist 117 displays a clinical psychosis in much of his presentation and writing.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
As I tend not to take the teachings of the Bible literally , I often wondered ,about Eve coming from the rib of Adam. Any thoughts? Thankh you
phfrankh 1 year ago
@phfrankh
If it happened like so, it would have been a completely supernatural act of special creation which could not be proved or disproved without being there as an eyewitness.
chukmaty 1 year ago
@chukmaty Regardless, the whole Creation was and is a supernatural act. Much of the meaning of it is revealed to us through parables and stories. Without the meaning, but taken only literally, none of it makes any sense. The meaning is the focus.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
@phfrankh However one wishes to take it, the story is a prophecy about the Church coming from Christ and being sanctified by His blood. By the way, "female" is the default gender and default brain-wiring for all known species. In some species, the male is a mere appendix of the female.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
@allsaintsmonastery Thankh you for your reply,very interesting! the female being the default gender. I often witness in nature how early the "brain wiring/nervous system" is developed via the female gender. Also, I often related the story of Adam & Eve as a state of spiritual consciousness.
phfrankh 1 year ago
Thank you for using your wisdom this way ;-)
skinnyjohnsen 1 year ago
Since science is empirical observation, the following questiion comes to mind: If Genesis contained the most advanced scientific facts about the universe and it's beginning, couldn't atheists simply reply that it wasn't God who gave the hebrews that knowledge, but that they simply gained that knowledge by observation?
I'd assert, that revelation has to be about man and God, since that is something we cannot empirically find out and know for ourselves. What do you think?
psevdhome 1 year ago
@psevdhome Precisely so. The whole of the revelation in Genesis is about man's condition, relation to God, to the earth, to other human beings, and his own "self." It also demonstrates to us the difference between the essence and hypostasis of man.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago