Total posts: 8,050
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
You are the one listening to demons, not me. The demons who tell you that The Truth does not exist, and that there is no Ultimate Reality.
Truth stands clear apart from error, and your error is manifest for all to see. God forbid a fool who denies The Truth be taken as anything other than deluded.
Created:
Posted in:
The Truth is what sets you free.
Those who receive no love of The Truth will be cursed with strong delusion, and be made a slave to sin.
Created:
Posted in:
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality exists, and The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is God.
Those who put their faith in lying vanities forsake their own salvation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
I deny every accusation you make. Christianity does not condone bigotry, vilification, or incite hatred.
So what? You can find examples of evil people trying to justify themselves by appealing to God. They use The Lord's name in vain, they do not represent the teachings of Orthodox Christianity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
There is no argument against The Ultimate Reality that stands.
You at best can only refute straw man false gods. You have no argument against God, The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
The Ultimate Reality is God.
You can't appeal to truth to disprove The Truth. You would undermine your own argument.
Created:
Posted in:
What is an Anathema?
Bishop Theophan the Recluse
Rarely does the Rite of Orthodoxy, which is now being performed, take place without censures and reproaches on somebody's part. And no matter how many sermons are given explaining that the Church here acts wisely for the salvation of her children -- still the malcontents just keep repeating their line. Either they do not listen to the sermons, or these sermons do not strike home as regards the latters' perplexities, or perhaps they have formed their own conception of this rite and do not want to abandon it, no matter what you tell them.
To some people our anathemas seem inhumane, to others constricting. Such charges might be valid in other situations, but there is no way they can apply to our Rite of Orthodoxy. I will clarify for you briefly why the Church acts thus, and I think you yourselves will agree with me that in so doing, the Church acts wisely.
What is the holy Church? It is a society of believers, united among themselves by a unity of confession of divinely revealed truths, by a unity of sanctification by divinely established Mysteries, and by a unity of government and guidance by God-given shepherds. The oneness of confession, sanctification, and administration constitutes the rule of this society, which is obligatory for anyone who joins it. Membership in this society is contingent upon accepting this rule and agreeing with it; remaining in this society is contingent upon fulfilling it. Let us see how the holy Church grew and how it continues to grow. The preachers preach. Some of the listeners do not accept the preaching and leave; others accept it and as a result of accepting it are sanctified by the holy Mysteries, follow the guidance of the shepherds, and thus are incorporated into the holy Church -- they are churched. That is how all the Church's members enter her. In entering her, they are mingled with all her members, they are united with them, and they remain in the Church only as long as they continue to be one with them all.
From this simple indication regarding how the Church is formed, you can see that as a society, the holy Church came to be and continues to exist just like any other society. And so regard it as you would any other, and do not deprive it of the rights belonging to any society. Let us take, for example, a temperance society. It has rules which every member must fulfill. And each of its members is a member precisely because he accepts and abides by its rules. Now suppose that some member not only refuses to abide by the rules but also holds many views completely opposed to those of the society and even rises up against its very goal. He not only does not himself observe temperance but even reviles temperance itself and disseminates notions which might tempt others and deflect them from temperance. What does the society ordinarily do with such people? First it admonishes them, and then it expels them. There you have an anathema! No one protests this, no one reproaches the society for being inhuman. Everyone acknowledges that the society is acting in a perfectly legitimate manner and that if it were to act otherwise, it could not exist.
So what is there to reproach the holy Church for when she acts likewise? After all, an anathema is precisely separation from the Church, or the exclusion from her midst of those who do not fulfill the conditions of unity with her and begin to think differently from the way she does, differently from the way they themselves promised to think upon joining her. Recollect how it happened! Arius appeared, who held impious opinions concerning Christ the Savior, so that with these notions he distorted the very act of our salvation. What was done with him? First he was admonished, and admonished many times by every persuasive and touching means possible. But since he stubbornly insisted upon his opinion, he was condemned and excommunicated from the Church -- that is, he is expelled from our society. Beware, have no communion with him and those like him. Do not yourselves hold such opinions, and do not listen to or receive those who do. Thus did the holy Church do with Arius; thus has she done with all other heretics; and thus will she do now, too, if someone appears somewhere with impious opinions. So tell me, what is blameworthy here? What else could the holy Church do? And could she continue to exist if she did not employ such strictness and warn her children with such solicitude about those who might corrupt and destroy them?
Let us see -- what false teachings and what false teachers are excommunicated? Those who deny the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, divine providence; those who do not confess the all-holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the One God; those who do not acknowledge the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ and our redemption by His death on the Cross; those who reject the grace of the Holy Spirit and the divine Mysteries which bestow it, and so forth. Do you see what manner of issues they touch upon? These are issues which are the very reason the holy Church is the Church, principles upon which she is founded and without which she could not be that which she is. Therefore those who rise up against such truths are to the Church what those who make attempts against our lives and our property are to us in our daily life. Robbers and thieves, after all, are nowhere permitted to carry on freely and go unpunished! And when they are bound and handed over to the law and to punishment, no one considers this to be inhumane or a violation of freedom. On the contrary, people see in this very thing both an act of love for man and a safeguard for freedom -- with regard to all the members of society. If you judge thus here, judge thus also concerning the society of the Church. These false teachers, just like thieves and robbers, plunder the property of the holy Church and of God, corrupting her children and destroying them.
Does the holy Church really err in judging them, binding them, and casting them out? And would it really be love for man if she regarded the actions of such people with indifference and left them at liberty to destroy everyone else? Would a mother permit a snake to freely crawl up to and bite her little child, who does not understand the danger? If some immoral person were to gain access to your family and begin tempting your daughter, or your son -- would you be able to regard their actions and their speeches with indifference? Fearing to gain a reputation for being inhumane and old- fashioned, would you tie your own hands? Would you not push such a person out the door and close it against them forever?! You should view the actions of the holy Church in the same way. She sees that individuals of corrupt mind appear, and corrupt others -- and she rises up against them, drives them away, and calls out to all those who are her own: Beware -- so-and-so and such-and-such people wish to destroy your souls. Do not listen to them; flee from them. Thus she fulfills the duty of motherly love, and therefore acts lovingly -- or as you put it, humanely.
At the present time, we have a proliferation of nihilists, spiritists and other pernicious clever ones who are carried away with the false teachers of the West. Do you really think that our holy Church would keep silence and not raise her voice to condemn and anathematize them, if their destructive teachings were something new? By no means. A council would be held, and in council all of them with their teachings would be given over to anathema, and to the current Rite of Orthodoxy there would be appended an additional item: To Feyerbach, Buchner, and Renan, to the spiritists, and to all their followers -- to the nihilists - - be anathema. But there is no need for such a council, and there is no need either for such an addition. Their false teachings have already all been anathematized in advance in those points where anathema is pronounced to those who deny the existence of God, the spirituality and immortality of the soul, the teachings concerning the all-holy Trinity and concerning the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Do you not see with what wisdom and foresight the holy Church acts when she makes us perform the present proclamation and listen to it? And yet they say, "This is outdated." It is precisely now that it is relevant. Perhaps 100 years ago it was not relevant. But one must say concerning our time, that if a Rite of Orthodoxy did not as yet exist, it would be needful to introduce one, and to perform it not only in the capital cities but in all places and in all churches: in order to collect all the evil teachings opposed to the Word of God, and to make them known to all, in order that all might know what they need to beware of and what kind of teachings to avoid. Many are corrupted in mind solely due to ignorance, whereas a public condemnation of ruinous teachings would save them from perdition.
Thus, the Church excommunicates, expels from her midst (when it is said, "Anathema to so-and-so", that means the same thing as, "So-and-so: out of here"), or anathematizes for the same reason that any society does so. And she is obliged to do this in self-preservation and to preserve her children from destruction. Therefore there is nothing blameworthy or incomprehensible about this present Rite. If anyone fears the act of anathema, let him avoid the teachings which cause one to fall under it. If anyone fears it for others, let him restore him to sound teaching. If you are Orthodox and yet you are not well disposed toward this act, then you are found to be contradicting yourself. But if you have already abandoned sound doctrine, then what business is it of yours what is done in the Church by those who maintain it? By the very fact that you have conceived a different view of things than that which is maintained in the Church, you have already separated yourself from the Church. It is not inscription in the baptismal records which makes one a member of the Church, but the spirit and content of one's opinions. Whether your teaching and your name are pronounced as being under anathema or not, you already fall under it when your opinions are opposed to those of the Church, and when you persist in them. Fearful is the anathema. Leave off your evil opinions. Amen.
Created:
Posted in:
Nihilism is fundamentally an anti-intellectual philospphy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
I'm smart enough to see that you don't know what isolating a variable means.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
You are only going to be confused if you don't recognize which church has authority.
Not that you care or anything.
But let that be a witness to those who call themselves Christians but insist on their independence from the church. The heathens are confused on account of it, and them perxeiving a disunity among Christians mock the faith for it.
It is important that we all get on the same page. Thst is recognize that The Orthodox Catholic Church is the church of Christ, and if you are not with it, you belong to a heretical church.
Created:
Posted in:
"Only the foolish think that suffering is evil. A sensible man knows that suffering is not evil but only the manifestation of evil and healing from evil. Only sin in a man is a real evil, and there is no evil outside sin. Everything else that men generally call evil is not, but is a bitter medicine to heal from evil. The sicker the man, the more bitter the medicine that the doctor prescribes for him. At times, even, it seems to a sick man that the medicine is worse and more bitter than the sickness itself! And so it seems at times to the sinner: the suffering is harder and more bitter than the sin committed. But this is only an illusion – a very strong self-delusion. There is no suffering in the world that could be anywhere near as hard and destructive as sin is. All the suffering borne by men and nations is none other than the abundant healing that eternal Mercy offers to men and nations to save them from eternal death. Every sin, however small, would inevitably bring death if Mercy were not to allow suffering in order to sober men up from the inebriation of sin; for the healing that comes through suffering is brought about by the gracefilled power of the Holy and Life-giving Spirit."
~ St. Nikolai Velimirovich
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Jesus is Lucifer.
Makes it pretty clear
Revelation 22:16
Lucifer is not really a name for the devil, it is a word that exists only in translation. Understandably, this can be confusing.
In Isaiah what sometimes gets translated into "lucifer" is a reference to the king of Babylon who fancied himself a god above the earth. Lucifer being the morning star, venus, which happens to show up in the night sky right before dawn. That is why Venus historically has been called the morning star, because its appearance in the sky preceeds the rising of the sun.
So in a sense, you are right. Jesus Christ is the morning star. His appearance even, precedes the rising up of all with Him in the glorious ressurection, Christ Himself being the resurrection. The resurrection being The Light of Truth.
But it isn't the case that Lucifer fell from heaven and became Jesus. Jesus Christ is not an angel or anything like that. Jesus Christ is The Incarnate Word of God.
Essential to recognizing the identity of Jesus Christ is The Trinity.
The scriptures do say that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light though, "Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."
That word that gets translated into "transformed" in the King James(which I quote from because it has no copywrites) is μετασχηματίζεται, which in the context of this verse means that the devil masquerades as an angel of light, not that he actually becomes one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
The Orthodox Catholic Church is the original Christian church.
Accept no substitutes.
Created:
Posted in:
From the prophet Malachi...
"For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts."
This alone is pretty good scriptural reason why we burn incense to God.
Besides, during our vespers, we sing this psalm of David, and at this particular point is when we light the incense...
"LORD, I cry unto thee: make haste unto me; give ear unto my voice, when I cry unto thee.
Let my prayer be set forth before thee as incense; and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice."
Imagine hearing this having never experienced incense! It really is appropriate.
Besides, if someone were to come into church who was deaf and blind, at least from the smell they would know something special was going on!
We like to engage all of the senses in our worship. People after all, respond to different things. I really like incense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
As the JWs do not believe in The Trinity, I don't even recognize them as Christian.
Created:
Posted in:
The idea that Christianity is anti-science is ludicrous at best. The medical field in particular is historically a very Christian path to take. There are plenty of examples of saints who were doctors. The earliest example would be the very author of The Gospel of Luke and the book of acts. Saint Luke was a doctor!
We are supposed to care for the sick and the suffering, and there are many technological means of accomplishing this that in no way are unchristian.
Created:
Posted in:
So can you explain the difference in role between those (priests) who marry and those who don't?
I have seen both act as parish priests. Monasteries need priests too though, and it might be strange to have a married priest at a monastery.
I don't have a problem with infant baptism per se. I agree with its biblical consistency. Nevertheless, submerging an infant three times in the name of the Trinity seems to be overthetop and not authorised by Scripture.
A baptism is not valid to us unless it is done by the trinitarian formula. There is nothing strange about this.
This is your opinion. The Western Church states it was the Eastern Church which rebelled against Orthodoxy, and therefore went into schism. The Western Church did not alter the creed despite your repetition of the same. Each creed from the beginning changed - so must be altered according to your understanding. I would suggest that each development was a clarification. I tend to agree that Rome nor Alexandria ought interfere in the affairs of other self-governing churches. The Council at Nicaea was an ecumenical council and acted in accordance with the rules of the Church at the time. Again the East chose not to attend. That was a waiving of the East's opportunity to contribute.
It isn't an opinion at all, the rulings of the councils have been well documented.
Every ecumenical council that took place before the schism took place in the east. Your facts are wrong. Including your opinion on the creed. The creed of the church was altered uncanonically be the Latin church.
I am Orthodox largely because in studying church history I came to realize that Rome is unambiguously on the wrong aide of the issue. I had always been educated before then to accept Rome's side of the story. Rome is on the wrong side of the issue, I have no doubt about this.
I can see how you make a difference between a legitimate church and also sincere Christians. Yet, given it was the East who went into schism it is difficult to sustain your argument fully. I am pleased the East has not rejected all of the sincere Christians in the West, although I find it amusing that you seem to elevate persons to Saints whereas Paul describes all sincere Christians as Saints. Also, I don't have a particular problem recognising the Eastern Orthodox, at least in theory, is a legitimate, despite its own heresies such as the rejection of the filioque.
If it is the case that it can be proven that the filoque is an addition to the creed, and it can be proven by at least 2 ecumenical councils that adding to the creed is an act of schism.
You are right though, all sincere Christians are saints. The church doesn't really make people saints so much as it recognizes particular saints as being noteworthy for one reason or another. Remembering the saints is important to us, as it is a part of our history. Much in the same way we remember biblical figures. I really appreciate the fact that the church honors the saints, it is part of what attracted me to the church.
I also accept the biblical teaching on covenant and its teaching of appeal. When a proper authority loses its way, then an appeal is made to another legitimate authority to provide the security of renewing or continuing the former ways. Hence, when the Roman Catholic Church lost its way, an appeal was made to properly instituted God ordained authority to renew or continue the former ways. If the Protestants had not appealed to such properly ordained institutions, then its authority would be illegitimate. Hence, why I would dismiss those who did not follow similar paths and went it alone on their own authority. If you knew church history as you suggest, then you would know the ways of the covenant and how people who are being oppressed by their authorities are able to appeal in such a manner as to not be subversive in their manner towards proper authorities.
The Orthodox Church is better at preserving the sanctity of the faith, because all bishops, even patriarchs, are considered equals. The primary job of every bishop is the preserving of the faith. We do not have a pope who can exercise total authority over the church. We understand Christ as the head of the church, and the bible is given precedence over all doctrinal matters.
I am glad to read that. Although I suspect that like most people - what makes something a custom and what makes something more than that such as holy tradition is not so easy to define.
You are right, it isn't always so easy to discern. A good indication though is whether or not something is universally practiced in all the churches.
What makes wearing a robe tradition or custom? What makes a priest celibate tradition or custom? What makes incense and images in the church building a tradition or a custom? These are the questions you ought to address - at least for me.
Cossacks and such are useful for identifying clergy and such. It's a uniform, not unlike what a police officer might wear or a doctor. It was prophesied in the old Testament that every nation would burn incense to God, and so we keep to that by burning incense. Even Solomon's temple had images, but iconography in the church is intended to teach through images. It is actually a language. This aspect of iconography was somewhat diminished in the west as artists moved towards more photorealistic forms of art. The iconography of the church is moreso intended to communicate spiritual aspects of what is being depicted. A simple example would be halos. Jesus Christ for instance always has a special halo that identifies Him as being God incarnate.
I certainly said above- we should not get rid of traditions for the sake of getting rid of traditions. I do think we ought to understand why we have traditions - and even customs. Many people unfortunately in EVERY church do not know why they stand or sit or kneel at different times in the service. For many it is what they have always done - why do Catholics eat fish on Fridays? Why do people genuflect when they enter a building or pray? Why do the priests finish of completely all of the wine - but not the bread after communion? Why do the Catholics not let their parishioners drink the wine anymore? Why do Charismatics raise their hands?
We have a reason for everything we do, even customs. I can't really speak for these other churches. For example, we fast on wednesdays and fridays. It is something actually inherited from our Jewish roots, like a lot of things, but for us everything has been transformed by the revelation of Christ. Wednesday we fast in remembrance of Christ's betrayel. Friday we fast in remembrance of Christ's crucifixion. We meet on Sunday in remembrance of Christ's resurrection and us being raised with Him on the 8th day which symbolizes the eternity that encompasses all days.
We tend to have a lot of bread after a liturgy, and parishioners tend to grab some before leaving. We are also encouraged to share the bread with visitors whether they are orthodox or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The Truth is God.
Atheism towards God is denial of The Truth.
Therefore, atheism is nihilism.
Otherwise, how could it be that only a fool in their heart denies God?
That is why I maintain that most atheists don't really understand what atheism is, because they tend to be superstitious concerning God. It is better to take the atheist as confused rather than a knowing denier of Absolute Truth.
Sure enough, there are atheists here who have admitted that The Ultimate Reality exists. They aren't really atheists, though they may not know it yet. Their problem is moreso that they can't detach their own superstitions and misconceptions concerning God from their conception of God.
Of course, they would likely be crucified by many of their peers if they were to admit that God exists.
Created:
Posted in:
It is expected that a nihilist be arbitrary in matters concerning truth.
Created:
Posted in:
If Orthodoxy was truly irrelevant, why am I convert? Why is my home church almost entirely composed of converts?
But this is a bad argument to begin with. It is to be expected that in a world that is drifting away from God in favor of self deification, the allure of the many idolatries that tempt in our age, and the societal abandonment of absolute truth in favor of relatvism... Christianity in general is increasingly irrelevent to the world.
I'm sorry, but I can't be a protestant. If I am not an Orthodox Christian, I can never be a protestant. This is the only form of Christianity that speaks to me. I lived in protestant land far longer than I have been Orthodox, and it was not a good place for me. I could always tell something was missing. How can I explain this to you? I can't. You don't know what you are missing. In fact, you have already dismissed The Church. The protestant mentality finds the very existence of The Orthodox Catholic Church to be obnoxious.
That is why protestantism is subversive to the faith itself, and the fruit of protestantism is the current age of nihilism that we live in. Protestant scholasticism is what sparked the secularization of the world, and the abandonment of faith.
I can't ever be protestant. I tried very hard. After becoming Orthodox, I know why. If The Holy Spirit isn't with The Orthodox Church, it isn't anywhere.
Created:
Posted in:
what is written on our hearts? This by the Spirit of God.Christ was crucified here on earth. Do you deny he was crucified? We take the view that until we are born from above, that our hearts and minds cannot understand the spiritual things of God. Do you think otherwise? Our hearts must be reconciled to God or all else is nought. Do you reject this thinking?
No, I am sure we agree on these things.
Whatever do you mean? It is not our church to recreate. It is the church where the Lord Jesus is the head of it. Do you understand grace? DO you think that you deserve grace? Do you think that your church deserves Grace? Do you think that the protestants don't deserve Grace? Do you think that we think we deserve grace? The Lord Jesus is transforming his people into the people he wants them to be - more and more like himself. He is our head, we are his body. It is he who transforms us - not we ourselves. It is by his Spirit that we have life and it is by Jesus that we upheld by his word. Don't you believe this? We abide in him and love him because he first loved us. He holds us in the palm of his hands. We know his voice because we belong to him. He has made us part of his family by faith in Christ Jesus through the atoning work of his blood. He commands us to come boldly into his presence because Jesus is our great high priest. We could not do so unless his Spirit draws us to him.
There are a lot of questions here, but we understand that The Holy Spirit is everywhere present and fills all things. Does that answer your questions?
We don't disagree with you here at all.
Yes totally agree. So why do you seek to divide the church? It is you who call us divided. It is you who think you are right and we are wrong. I have said on numerous occasions that I see us as one church. I see the denominations as a good thing. You choose to see it as wrong and in error and subsequently, you then say it is divided. I say that the church is one body - made up of many parts. Do you recall the disciples saying to Jesus - "do you want us to call down fire on those others?" Jesus said, "they who are not against us are with us." Why do you reject Jesus' words? Why do you act in accordance with the disciples in this picture?I say you are making a mess of things by acting against the Lord Jesus. Despite his commands to not be divisive - and despite Peter's words that provide a test of those who belong to God, you and it appears your church, are spreading misconceptions and trying to divide the body of Christ. I am pleased however that the Lord Jesus is bigger than your church and that his kingdom is extending to cover all the world embracing all cultures, tongues, and peoples. Praise Jesus.
We are not dividing the church at all. Remember, Rome broke away from us. The protestants broke away from Rome. Until the protestants return to the mother church, they are the ones in schism. It can't be said that the church is divided, but protestants, as I have stated, are denominations. That is, incomplete churches. They are not catholic in the historical understanding of the term. This is why I say, the proper conclusion of the reformation is reunion with The Orthodox Church.
I am not persuaded by apostolic succession because firstly, it is not in the Scriptures, and secondly, the papacy and indeed the OC have both used it to prove their authority. Both churches have sought authority in tradition and superstition and not the Word of God which explicitly tells us that authority is found in Christ and in faithful men - full of the Spirit. You and the Roman Catholic Church make your apostolic succession the basis of authority - not faith, not Christ but a tradition. This is probably one of the primary reasons both the OC and the Catholic church have fallen into liberalism and become irrelevant to the world. They rely on their tradition; not the Holy Spirit.
Accusing tge Orthodox Chur h of liberalism is really quite silly. We are easily the most conservative of churches. We have been practicing the same liturgy for well over a millennium and a half.
Apostolic succession is certainly in the scriptures, as the bishops themselves were appiinted by the apostles. Besides that, the early church writings testify that not only was apostolic succession an acknowledged reality, but that it was one way to distinguish the true church from the many that would try to exploit the power they saw in Christ's name to preach abominable heresies that undermine the faith itself.
From the very beginning, apostolic succession was seen as important. This only ceased to be the case when protestant churches saught to justify their existence apart from The Apostolic Church.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Orthodox priests are more often than not married.
Jews were circumcised on the 8th day. Infants are baptized with the understanding that they will be raised in the faith.
The western church rebelled against Orthodoxy, which is why it is in schism. The ecumenical councils are very clear that altering the creed of the church is an act of schism. The Latin speaking church demonstrably did this in the addition of the filoque. In addition to this, the church has never accepted the authority of Rome to interfere in the affairs of other self governing churches, and even before the schism there are examples of the bishop of Rome being rebuked for attempying this. Even examples of the Alexandrian Patriarch being rebuked for this!
There is a difference between rejecting a church as being a legitimate, and rejecting sincere Christians who are in these heterodox churches. We do the former, not the later. In fact, writings of our church have plenty examples of us acknowledging the good we see in western saints. We even recognize as saints some who were technically in heretical churches. For example, Saint Isaac of Nineva was a monastic who for a brief time was even a bishop in the nestorian church.
It is important also to note that we understand the difference between Holy Tradition and custom. We have customs, and these we recognize as being cultural things that are not integral to the faith. However, that does not make customs bad. It is only harmful when these customs are taken for something other than what they are.
Created:
Posted in:
Logic, thus, can take us this far: denial or doubt of absolute truth leads (if one is consistent and honest) to the abyss of solipsism and ir rationalism; the only position that involves no logical contradictions is the affirmation of an absolute truth which underlies and secures all lesser truths; and this absolute truth can be attained by no relative, human means. At this point logic fails us, and we must enter an entirely different universe of discourse if we are to proceed. It is one thing to state that there is no logical barrier to the affirmation of absolute truth; it is quite another actually to affirm it. Such an affirmation can be based upon only one source; the question of truth must come in the end to the question of Revelation.
The critical mind hesitates at this point. Must we seek from without what we cannot attain by our own unaided power? It is a blow to pride most of all to that pride which passes today for scientific "humility" that "sits down before fact as a little child" and yet refuses to acknowledge any arbiter of fact save the proud human reason. It is, however, a particular revelation Divine Revelation, the Christian Revelation that so repels the rationalist; other revelations he does not gainsay.
Indeed, the man who does not accept, fully and consciously, a coherent doctrine of truth such as the Christian Revelation provides, is forced if he has any pretensions to knowledge whatever to seek such a doctrine elsewhere; this has been the path of modern philosophy, which has ended in obscurity and confusion because it would never squarely face the fact that it cannot supply for itself what can only be given from without. The blindness and confusion of modern philosophers with regard to first principles and the dimension of the absolute have been the direct consequence of their own primary assumption, the non existence of Revelation; for this assumption in effect blinded men to the light of the sun and rendered obscure everything that had once been clear in its light.
To one who gropes in this darkness there is but one path, if he will not be healed of his blindness; and that is to seek some light amidst the darkness here below. Many run to the flickering candle of "common sense" and conventional life and accept because one must get along somehow the current opinions of the social and intellectual circles to which they belong. But many others, finding this light too dim, flock to the magic lanterns that project beguiling, multicolored views that are, if nothing else, distracting; they become devotees of this or the other political or religious or artistic current that the "spirit of the age" has thrown into fashion.
In fact no one lives but by the light of some revelation, be it a true or a false one, whether it serve to enlighten or obscure. He who will nor live by the Christian Revelation must live by a false revelation; and all false revelations lead to the Abyss.
We began this investigation with the logical question, "what is truth?" That question may and must be framed from an entirely different point of view. The skeptic Pilate asked the question, though not in earnest; ironically for him, he asked it of the Truth Himself. "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me."(John 13:6) "Ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free."(John 8:32) Truth in this sense, Truth that confers eternal life and freedom, cannot be attained by any human means; it can only be revealed from above by One Who has the power to do so.
The path to this Truth is a narrow one, and most men because they travel the "broad" path miss it. There is no man, however, for so the God Who is Truth created him who does not seek this Truth. We shall examine, in later chapters, many of the false absolutes, the false gods men have invented and worshipped in our idolatrous age; and we shall find that what is perhaps most striking about them is that every one of them, far from being any "new revelation," is a dilution, a distortion, a perversion, or a parody of the One Truth men cannot help but point to even in their error and blasphemy and pride. The notion of Divine Revelation has been thoroughly discredited for those who must obey the dictates of the "spirit of the age"; but it is impossible to extinguish the thirst for truth which God has implanted in man to lead them to Him, and which can only be satisfied in the acceptance of His Revelation. Even those who profess satisfaction with "relative" truths and consider themselves too "sophisticated" or "honest" or even "humble" to pursue the absolute even they tire, eventually, of the fare of unsatisfying tidbits to which they have arbitrarily confined themselves, and long for more substantial fare.
The whole food of Christian Truth, however, is accessible only to faith; and the chief obstacle to such faith is not logic, as the facile modern view has it, but another and opposed faith. We have seen indeed, that logic cannot deny absolute truth without denying itself; the logic that sets itself up against the Christian Revelation is merely the servant of another "revelation," of a false "absolute truth": namely Nihilism.
In the following pages we shall characterize as "Nihilists" men of, as it seems, widely divergent views: humanists, skeptics, revolutionaries of all hues, artists and philosophers of various schools; but they are united in a common task. Whether in positivist "criticism" of Christian truths and institutions, revolutionary violence against the Old Order, apocalyptic visions of universal destruction and the advent of a paradise on earth, or objective scientific labors in the interests of a "better life" in this world the tacit assumption being that there is no other world their aim is the same: the annihilation of Divine Revelation and the preparation of a new order in which there shall be no trace of the "old" view of things, in which Man shall be the only god there is.
Created:
Posted in:
This axiom has a corollary: the absolute cannot be attained by means of the relative. That is to say, the first principles of any system of knowledge cannot be arrived at through the means of that knowledge itself, but must be given in advance; they are the object, not of scientific demonstration, but of faith.
We have discussed, in an earlier chapter, the universality of faith, seeing it as underlying all human activity and knowledge; and we have seen that faith, if it is not to fall prey to subjective delusions, must be rooted in truth. It is therefore a legitimate, and indeed unavoidable question whether the first principles of the scientific faith for example, the coherence and uniformity of nature, the transsubjectivity of human knowledge, the adequacy of reason to draw conclusions from observation are founded in absolute truth; if they are not, they can be no more than unverifiable probabilities. The "pragmatic" position taken by many scientists and humanists who cannot be troubled to think about ultimate things the position that these principles are no more than experimental hypotheses which collective experience finds reliable is surely unsatisfactory; it may offer a psychological explanation of the faith these principles inspire, but since it does not establish the foundation of that faith in truth, it leaves the whole scientific edifice on shifting sands and provides no sure defense against the irrational winds that periodically attack it.
In actual fact, however, whether it be from simple naivete or from a deeper insight which they cannot justify by argument most scientists and humanists undoubtedly believe that their faith has something to do with the truth of things. Whether this belief is justified or not is, of course, another question; it is a metaphysical question, and one thing that is certain is that it is not justified by the rather primitive metaphysics of most scientists.
Every man, as we have seen, lives by faith; likewise every man something less obvious but no less certain is a metaphysician. The claim to any knowledge whatever and no living man can refrain from this claim implies a theory and standard of knowledge, and a notion of what is ultimately knowable and true. This ultimate truth, whether it be conceived as the Christian God or simply as the ultimate coherence of things, is a metaphysical first principle, an absolute truth. But with the acknowledgement, logically unavoidable, of such a principle, the theory of the "relativity of truth" collapses, it itself being revealed as a self contradictory absolute.
The proclamation of the "relativity of truth" is, thus, what might be called a "negative metaphysics" but a metaphysics all the same. There are several principal forms of "negative metaphysics," and since each contradicts itself in a slightly different way, and appeals to a slightly different mentality, it would be wise to devote a paragraph here to the examination of each. We may divide them into the two general categories of "realism" and "agnosticism," each of which in turn may be subdivided into "naive" and "critical."
"Naive realism," or "naturalism," does not precisely deny absolute truth, but rather makes absolute claims of its own that cannot be defended. Rejecting any "ideal" or "spiritual" absolute, it claims the absolute truth of "materialism" and "determinism." This philosophy is still current in some circles it is official Marxist doctrine and is expounded by some unsophisticated scientific thinkers in the West but the main current of contemporary thought has left it behind, and it seems today the quaint relic of a simpler, but bygone, day, the Victorian day when many transferred to "science" the allegiance ahd emotions they had once devoted to religion. It is the impossible formulation of a "scientific" metaphysics impossible because science is, by its nature, knowledge of the particular, and metaphysics is knowledge of what underlies the particular and is presupposed by it. It is a suicidal philosophy in that the "materialism" and "determinism" it posits render all philosophy invalid; since it must insist that philosophy, like everything else, is "determined," its advocates can only claim that their philosophy, since it exists, is "inevitable," but not at all that it is "true." This philosophy, in fact, if consistent, would do away with the category of truth altogether; but its adherents, innocent of thought that is either consistent or profound, seem unaware of this fatal contradiction. The contradiction may be seen, on a less abstract level, in the altruistic and idealistic practice of, for example, the Russian Nihilists of the last century, a practice in flagrant contradiction of their purely materialistic and egoistic theory; Vladimir Solovyov cleverly pointed out this discrepancy by ascribing to them the syllogism, "Man is descended from a monkey, consequently we shall love one another."
All philosophy presupposes, to some degree, the autonomy of ideas; philosophical "materialism" is, thus, a species of "idealism." It is, one might say, the self confession of those whose ideas do not rise above the obvious, whose thirst for truth is so easily assuaged by science that they make it into their absolute.
"Critical realism," or "positivism," is the straightforward denial of metaphysical truth. Proceeding from the same scientific predispositions as the more naive naturalism, it professes greater modesty in abandoning the absolute altogether and restricting itself to "empirical," "relative" truth. We have already noted the contradiction in this position: the denial of absolute truth is itself an "absolute truth"; again, as with naturalism, the very positing of the first principle of positivism is its own refutation.
"Agnosticism," like "realism," may be distinguished as "naive" and "critical." "Naive" or "doctrinaire agnosticism" posits the absolute unknowability of any absolute truth. While its claim seems more modest even than that of positivism, it still quite clearly claims too much: if it actually knows that the absolute is "unknowable," then this knowledge is itself "absolute." Such agnosticism is in fact but a variety of positivism, attempting, with no greater success, to cover up its contradictions.
Only in "critical" or "pure agnosticism" do we find, at last, what seems to be a successful renunciation of the absolute; unfortunately, such renunciation entails the renunciation of everything else and ends if it is consistent in total solipsism. Such agnosticism is the simple statement of fact: we do not know whether there exists an absolute truth, or what its nature could be if it did exist; let us, then this is the corollary content ourselves with the empirical, relative truth we can know. But what is truth? What is knowledge? If there is no absolute standard by which these are to be measured, they cannot even be defined. The agnostic, if he acknowledges this criticism, does not allow it to disturb him; his position is one of "pragmatism," "experimentalism," "instrumentalism": there is no truth, but man can survive, can get along in the world, without it. Such a position has been defended in high places and in very low places as well in our anti intellectualist century; but the least one can say of it is that it is intellectually irresponsible. It is the definitive abandonment of truth, or rather the surrender of truth to power, whether that power be nation, race, class, comrort, or whatever other cause is able to absorb the energies men once devoted to the truth.
The "pragmatist" and the "agnostic" may be quite sincere and well meaning; but they only deceive themselves and others if they continue to use the word "truth" to describe what they are seeking. Their existence, in fact, is testimony to the fact that the search for truth which has so long animated European man has come to an end. Four centuries and more of modern thought have been, from one point of view, an experiment in the possibilities of knowledge open to man, assuming that there is no Revealed Truth. The conclusion: which Hume already saw and from which he fled into the comfort of "common sense" and conventional life, and which the multitudes sense today without possessing any such secure refuge the conclusion of this experiment is an absolute negation: if there is no Revealed Truth, there is no truth at all; the search for truth outside of Revelation has come to a dead end. The scientist admits this by restricting himself to the narrowest of specialties, content if he sees a certain coherence in a limited aggregate of facts, without troubling himself over the existence of any truth, large or small; the multitudes demonstrate it by looking to the scientist, not for truth, but for the technological applications of a knowledge which has no more than a practical value, and by looking to other, irrational sources for the ultimate values men once expected to find in truth. The despotism of science over practical life is contemporaneous with the advent of a whole series of pseudo religious "revelations"; the two are correlative symptoms of the same malady: the abandonment of truth.
Created:
Posted in:
From Chapter One of Nihilism by Eugene (Father Seraphim) Rose
What is the Nihilism in which we have seen the root of the Revolution of the modern age? The answer, at first thought, does not seem difficult; several obvious examples of it spring immediately to mind. There is Hitler's fantastic program of destruction, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Dadaist attack on art; there is the background from which these movements sprang, most notably represented by several "possessed" individuals of the late nineteenth century poets like Rimbaud and Baudelaire, revolutionaries like Bakunin and Nechayev, "prophets" like Nietzsche; there is, on a humbler level among our contemporaries, the vague unrest that leads some to flock to magicians like Hitler, and others to find escape in drugs or false religions, or to perpetrate those "senseless" crimes that become ever more characteristic of these times. But these represent no more than the spectacular surface of the problem of Nihilism. To account even for these, once one probes beneath the surface, is by no means an easy task; but the task we have set for ourselves in this chapter is broader: to understand the nature of the whole movement of which these phenomena are but extreme examples.
To do this it will be necessary to avoid two great pitfalls lying on either side of the path we have chosen, into one or the other of which most commentators on the Nihilist spirit of our age have fallen: apology, and diatribe.
Nihilism
Anyone aware of the too obvious imperfections and evils of modern civilization that have been the more immediate occasion and cause of the Nihilist reaction though we shall see that these too have been the fruit of an incipient Nihilism cannot but feel a measure of sympathy with some, at least, of the men who have participated in that reaction. Such sympathy may take the form of pity ror men who may, from one point of view, be seen as innocent "victims" of the conditions against which their effort has been directed; or again, it may be expressed in the common opinion that certain types of Nihilist phenomena have actually a "positive" significance and have a role to play in some "new development" of history or of man. The latter attitude, again, is itself one of the more obvious fruits of the very Nihilism in question here; but the former attitude, at least, is not entirely devoid of truth or justice. For that very reason, however, we must be all the more careful not to give it undue importance. It is all too easy, in the atmosphere of intellectual fog that pervades Liberal and Humanist circles today, to allow sympathy for an unfortunate person to pass over into receptivity to his ideas. The Nihilist, to be sure, is in some sense "sick," and his sickness is a testimony to the sickness of an age whose best as well as worst elements turn to Nihilism; but sickness is not cured, nor even properly diagnosed by "sympathy." In any case there is no such thing as an entirely "innocent victim."
The Nihilist is all too obviously involved in the very sins and guilt of mankind that have produced the evils of our age; and in taking arms as do all Nihilists not only against real or imagined "abuses" and "injustices" in the social and religious order, but also against order itself and the Truth that underlies that order, the Nihilist takes an active part in the work of Satan (for such it is) that can by no means be explained away by the mythology of the "innocent victim." No one, in the last analysis, serves Satan against his will.
But if "apology" is far from our intention in these pages, neither is our aim mere diatribe. It is not sufficient, for example, to condemn Naziism or Bolshevism for their "barbarism," "gangsterism," or "anti intellectualism," and the artistic or literary avant garde for their "pessimism" or "exhibitionism"; nor is it enough to defend the "democracies" in the name of "civilization," "progress," or "humanism," or for their advocacy of "private property" or "civil liberties." Such arguments, while some of them possess a certain justice, are really quite beside the point; the blows of Nihilism strike too deep, its program is far too radical, to be effectively countered by them. Nihilism has error for its root, and error can be conquered only by Truth. Most of the criticism of Nihilism is not directed to this root at all, and the reason for this as we shall see is that Nihilism has become, in our time, so widespread and pervasive, has entered so thoroughly and so deeply into the minds and hearts of all men living today, that there is no longer any "front" on which it may be fought; and those who think they are fighting it are most often using its own weapons, which they in effect turn against themselves.
Some will perhaps object once they have seen the scope of our project that we have set our net too wide: that we have exaggerated the prevalence of Nihilism or, if not, then that the phenomenon is so universal as to defy handling at all. We must admit that our task is an ambitious one, all the more so because of the ambiguity of many Nihilist phenomena; and indeed, if we were to attempt a thorough examination of the question our work would never end.
It is possible, however, to set our net wide and still catch the fish we are after because it is, after all, a single fish, and a large one. A complete documentation of Nihilist phenomena is out of the question; but an examination of the unique Nihilist mentality that underlies them, and of its indisputable effects and its role in contemporary history, is surely possible.
We shall attempt here, first, to describe this mentality in several, at least, of its most important manifestations and offer a sketch of its historical development; and then to probe more deeply into its meaning and historical program. But before this can be done, we must know more clearly of what we are speaking; we must begin, therefore, with a definition of Nihilism.
This task need not detain us long; Nihilism has been defined, and quite succinctly, by the fount of philosophical Nihilism, Nietzsche.
"That there is no truth; that there is no absolute state of affairs no 'thing in itself This alone is Nihilism, and of the most extreme kind. " (The Will to Power, Vol. 1, in The Complete Works ofFriedrich Nietzsche, New York, The Macmillan Company, 1909, Vol. 14, p. 6.)
"There is no truth": we have encountered this phrase already more than once in this book, and it will recur frequently hereafter. For the question of Nihilism is, most profoundly, a question of truth; it is, indeed: question of truth.
But what is truth? The question is, first of all, one of logic: before we discuss the content of truth, we must examine its very possibility, and the conditions of its postulation. And by "truth" we mean, of course as Nietzsche's denial of it makes explicit absolute truth, which we have already defined as the dimension of the beginning and the end of things.
"Absolute truth": the phrase has, to a generation raised on skepticism and unaccustomed to serious thought, an antiquated ring. No one, surely is the common idea no one is naive enough to believe in "absolute truth" any more; all truth, to our enlightened age, is "relative." The latter expression, let us note "all truth is relative" is the popular translation of Nietzsche's phrase, "there is no (absolute) truth"; the one doctrine is the foundation of the Nihilism alike of the masses and of the elite.
"Relative truth" is primarily represented, for our age, by the knowledge of science, which begins in observation, proceeds by logic, and progresses in orderly fashion from the known to the unknown. It is always discursive, contingent, qualified, always expressed in "relation" to something else, never standing alone, never categorical, never "absolute."
The unreflective scientific specialist sees no need for any other kind of knowledge; occupied with the demands of his specialty, he has, perhaps, neither time nor inclination for "abstract" questions that inquire, for example, into the basic presuppositions of that specialty. If he is pressed, or if his mind spontaneously turns to such questions, the most obvious explanation is usually sufficient to satisfy his curiosity: all truth is empirical, all truth is relative.
Either statement, of course, is a self contradiction. The first statement is itself not empirical at all, but metaphysical; the second is itself an absolute statement. The question of absolute truth is raised first of all, for the critical observer, by such self contradictions; and the first logical conclusion to which he must be led is this: if there is any truth at all, it cannot be merely "relative." The first principles of modern science, as of any system of knowledge, are themselves unchangeable and absolute; if they were not there would be no knowledge at all, not even the most "reflective" knowledge, for there would be no criteria by which to classify anything as knowledge or truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
The only thing you continually demonstrate is that you are more guilty of what you accuse others of than the people you accuse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
That wouldn't be too bad would it. presumably you will be able to continue your faith in heaven?
"When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.....For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."
Created:
Posted in:
Sure enough, everywhere religion is banned, innocents are killed. In the case of The Soviet Union, dozens of millions. The Romanians had it especially rough. Because they were not simply killed. The Soviets thought it more entertaining to experiment with various methods of torture than to kill.
Who were the people doing these things? Militant atheists who saw religion as a mental disorder and a societal affliction to be eradicated.
Created:
Posted in:
Doesn't the OP really say all?
I am talking with someone who wishes death on me. I am my religion. To ban religion is to kill me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
These are not facts, these are prejudices you have towards Christians.
I don't even hate you, despite the fact you have shown me nothing but hatred.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
I will never abandon my faith, you would have to kill me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I don't report posts, but you are welcome to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
You are the one that says we don't care about these people. If that was the case, why am I here? You think I get something out of arguing with people?
Really not my idea of a good time.
No, quite the contrary, I care an awful lot about all of these people. I care enough even about you to make an attempt at having a conversation. Why would I otherwise? You seem to hate us. You don't give any impression that this will change. So what? Here I am, defying all reason and talking to you.
A fool for Christ's sake, I am.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Lets get real for a second. This topic is you calling for the ban of religion.
I am my religion.
You are effectively wishing death on me. There is no love in that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
If you can not explain to me what I believe to my satisfaction, you do not understand my beliefs.
You have no justifiable reason to believe that I am anything you say I am, you are simply being prejudice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
If you don't hate Christians, how come you won't believe when you are told that your beliefs concerning us are false?
If you loved me, you wouldn't insist that what you say I believe is what I believe. Instead you would allow me to correct your misconceptions.
What you show me is prejudice, not love.
That being the case, you are not giving me a taste of any medicine I have given you.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
We do not share the same faith, Thomas.
Lets not confuse things by making it more complicated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
These are certainly stupid things that are done by protestant churches. That isn't the same thing as calling protestants stupid.
As I said before, it requires a great deal more commitment to one's idolatry to become a transgender than to say, eat too much or to occasionally lose one's temper.
An abbess you could say is the clearest example of a woman pastor.
The technical term for what you may assume to be a priest is in fact a presbyter. The wife of a presbyter is a presbytera, which is the female equivalent of the word.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
We don't share the same faith, Thomas. I do not recognize you.
Created:
Posted in:
The church does not incite hatred and bigotry, these are baseless and offensive accusations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I am fully capable of explaining or elaborating on any dogma. You however, will not accept what I say because what I say doesn't conform to your own prejudices.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Transgenders certainly should not be leaders in the church. It takes a certain level of commitment to one's idolatry to ever reach the point to where you become a transgender.
Transgenders can repent though, all is not lost.
And to clarify the above post, I don't believe the OP is arguing that protestants are stupid. Rather that protestant churches are incapable of maintaining the integrity of the faith. I agree with him whole heartedly, because it is demonstrably true.
We are not supposed to hate anyone, nor even really judge tbose outside the church. People can choose what master they serve. We point out that their master is evil. That doesn't necessarily mean that the one serving the master is evil, only that they are deceived. Deceived people by definition are unaware that they are deceived.
Prideful people will persist in their delusion even after coming to realize their error. However, sincere and humble people who love the truth eventually correct course.
It isn't our place to judge who is being honest, that is between a person and God. However, someone who is honestly deceived is incapable of seeing clearly.
Our discipline trains a person to see more clearly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
All atheists need to do is plug their ears up and go "la la la" while pretending there is no God.
The Ultimate Reality exists, and atheism towards this God is not even a serious position, it is patently idiotic.
What more needs to b . said about it? Atheists are superstitious and ignorant concerning the subject matter. They have no valid argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I don't believe the OP is arguing what you say.
But I suppose that is for you two to debate, not you and I.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I think you fail to realize that the transgender in the OP is the pastor of a church.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Your entire argument is ignorant, don't try to turn the tables by accusing me of making the straw man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
If you are doing the very thing you are accusing others of doing, maybe by your own judgement YOU should be silenced.
But that isn't how it works. You are fully within your rights to be a hypocritical bigot. You are fully within your rights to express those views.
See the difference? I think you are an asshole, but I respect your right to be an asshole. You on the other hand want to silence those you think are assholes.
If you ask me, which you didn't, I think that in itself makes it clear who is truly being evil.
Created:
Posted in:
I dunno, I think it would be pretty cool if The United States and Russia got along for once.
Are we seriously going to condemn an entire country because a few internet trolls made attempts at swaying our election? Can't we put the cold war behind us? The Soviet Union is dead, and good riddance.
Say what you want about the Russian government, it is easily the best government Russia ever had in terms of being free and respectful of human rights. Has there ever been a time when Russians were not oppressed by their government? Cut them some slack for Christ's sake. Russia ain't that bad.
I say that as someone who loves my country. I love America, and sometimes it is even hard for me to not feel passionately patriotic about it. I respect the Russian people. I'd like us to have good relations. I don't want war with Russia, hot or cold. I think it would be great if we could be allies!
Created: