Interesting Beliefs of Eastern Orthodoxy
Oh the insanities some people can be so convinced of.
The following is taken from The Orthodox Church: New Edition by Timothy Ware.
Orthodox religious thought lays the uttermost emphasis on the image of God in the human person. Each of us is a 'living theology', and because we are God's icon, we can find God by looking within our own heart, by 'returning within ourselves':'The kingdom of God is within you' (Luke xvii, 21). 'Know yourselves' said Antony of Egypt. '...He who knows himself, knows God.' [1] 'If you are pure,' wrote St Isaac the Syrian (late seventeenth century), 'heaven is within you; within yourself you will see the angels and the Lord of the angels.' [2] And of St Pachomius is it recorded: 'In the purity of his heart he saw the invisible God as in a mirror.' [3]
Because he or she is an icon of God, each member of the human race, even the most sinful, is infinitely precious in God's sight. 'When you see your brother or sister, ' said Clement of Alexandria, 'you see God.' [4] And Evangrius taught: 'After God, we must count everyone as God Himself.' [5] This respect of every human being is visibly expressed in Orthodox worship, when the priest censes not only the icons but the members of the congregation, saluting the image of God in each person. 'The best icon of God is the human person.' [6]
footnotes:
1. Letter 3 (in the Greek and Latin collections, 6).
2. Quoted in P. Evdokimov, L'Orthodoxie, p. 88.
3. First Greek Life, 22.
4. Stromateis, I, xix (94,5).
5. On Prayer, 123 (P.G. 1xxix, 1193c).
6. P. Evdokimov, L'Orthodoxie, p. 218.
Insane, is it not?
posted by Josh's Loving Wife, aka Angela Brisby @ 7:46 PM
14 Comments:
Angela,
Forgive my poor atheist brain here, but why is this insane? Why is this any different than believing that Christ was God? Why is this any different than believing in the trinity? Why is this any more insane than believing in "God"?
I guess I just don't see how your own beliefs can be considered sane, while this one is considered insane.
-olly
Olly,
Perhaps it would be more sane to believe that all of this came about by random chance and that snowflakes just randomly make amazing, intricate shapes with not one alike, but after all, "nature" did it, and my great-great-great-great-great-great-great, etc. grandpappy ate bananas and threw poop at people? ;0)
Good to see you back ol' chap!
--Josh Brisby
@Josh:
A couple of things: read more about evolution, unlike what people who don't really understand it would like to believe, it doesn't claim that we come from monkeys (as you seem to be implying).
Your snowflake example is a bit of a strange one. You are bringing up something in nature that shows "no two alike", and yet trying to use it as an example of a designer? Why would a designer set it up so no two were alike? Why would a designer set up something to act randomly... whats the point of design without consistency?
At any rate, you are begging the question. I'm simply asking why Angelas interpretation of the same scriptural sources is more valid than Eastern Orthodoxy's interpretation.
Attacking my worldview doesn't answer that question (not to mention that you don't fully understand my worldview, and are simply making assumptions about it based on arguments that I presume you have seen from other Atheists).
Olly,
Give me a source, please. If evolution isn't saying that the previous ancestors of humans were monkeys, then please give me a source or two.
As for the snowflakes example, you are arguing from the perspective of your worldview. If you want to critique mine, you need to do an internal critique. You see this as "random." Why would a designer design every snowflake so intricately, with no two alike? To leave men without excuse.
You also thought that there was no point to design without consistency. If you do a study on snowflakes, you will see that there is indeed consistency, even as there is consistency all over creation. You and I, for example, are both men. We have many of the same characteristics. Even as we do the binomial nomenclature to categorize species, we see, indeed, that that is what makes a species: similarity.
So, we see that the world around us has both unity and diversity. Evolution and naturalism cannot account for this in its worldview, because everything should be heading toward the same. Why, for example, are there still monkeys if they are our ancestors? But since the God of the universe is both One and Many, this is exactly what we should expect to see.
I have now again given an account for my worldview. I have done both an internal critique of yours, and shown you how mine indeed does, indeed is the only one that can, account for the world around us.
BTW, I wasn't begging the question about Eastern Orthodoxy. Your question was directed at my wife, and I chimed in with a little joke. I didn't address your question because it wasn't addressed at me. But you actually asked several questions, and all of which, by the way, Eastern Orthodoxy affirms. Which question did you want answered? The fallacy of circular reasoning or begging the question would be if I said something like: "Christianity is more sane than Eastern Orthodoxy because Christianity makes more sense." That, indeed, would be begging the question. But above I have told you why Christianity makes sense out of the world around us, and I have critiqued your worldview.
So, you need to be careful when you assert that a logical fallacy was committed. First make sure you understand which logical fallacy you asserted was committed, and then prove that it was committed.
I hope the above was helpful.
Sincerely,
Josh Brisby
"So, we see that the world around us has both unity and diversity. Evolution and naturalism cannot account for this in its worldview, because everything should be heading toward the same. Why, for example, are there still monkeys if they are our ancestors? But since the God of the universe is both One and Many, this is exactly what we should expect to see."
Josh, you said a lot, but this particular paragraph allows me to respond to it all, I think. First off, you *seriously* do not understand evolution. Monkey's, and man, share a *common* ancestor. They are *not* our ancestors. Unless you are going to just misinform and call every primate a *monkey*, of course.
You want a source? Any book on evolution that wasn't written by a creationist will tell you that humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans and monkeys and orangutans and apes and chimps all share common ancestry, and are all a part of the Family Hominidae.
Why are there still monkey's? Putting aside the fact that they *aren't* our ancestors, there is also the fact of divergent evolution, again any book on evolution can teach you about it.
"You and I, for example, are both men. We have many of the same characteristics. Even as we do the binomial nomenclature to categorize species, we see, indeed, that that is what makes a species: similarity."
Considering that snowflakes are made up of the same molecules (h20) it makes sense that they would show similarities. But you were talking about patterns, not molecules, which is what I asked you about.
What makes up a species is not just artificial similarities, but genetic similarities and common ancestry. A bat and a bird are not a part of the same species, yet they both have wings, they both fly, they are both vertebrates, etc. Even down to the mammal vs. non-mammal, a shark and a dolphin share many similar traits, yet are not the same species (dolphins are Cetaceans, sharks are Chondrichthyes).
You (wrongly) assume that consistency cannot arise out of randomness, and that there must be a designer. Do some studying of Chaos Theory for an example of how random events can lead to very complex organized systems.
Sources for evolutionary biology, and human genome work:
Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters by Matt Ridley
For Human Evolution, I HIGHLY recommend a book called "Extinct Humans" by Ian Tattersall.
-olly
Olly,
Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. Some thoughts:
(1) When I said that evolution says monkeys are our ancestors, I was referring to the fact that evolutionism states that monkeys is the species that human beings supposedly were before we became humans on the evolutionary chain. I am aware that evolution thinks that everything came from a common ancestor, although it disagrees as to what this is.
(2) When I asked for a source, I meant specifically for you to quote from a source and give me the page #, so I could go to the source myself.
(3) You have still not dealt with my worldview at all. All you have been doing is asserting claims from your worldview. Where does my worldview have inconsistency? How does my worldview violate the law of non-contradiction? You still haven't shown me this, nor have you even begun to touch upon it.
(4) Did you mean to blaspheme over at my blog, or was it a mistype?
--Josh Brisby
"(1) When I said that evolution says monkeys are our ancestors, I was referring to the fact that evolutionism states that monkeys is the species that human beings supposedly were before we became humans on the evolutionary chain. I am aware that evolution thinks that everything came from a common ancestor, although it disagrees as to what this is."
Again, you are wrong, and really should read something more modern than Darwin on evolution. The following is not a book source, because I'm at work and can't cite page numbers for a book I don't have in front of me, but here's a source that may help clarify: PBS Evolution FAQ
"(3) You have still not dealt with my worldview at all. All you have been doing is asserting claims from your worldview. Where does my worldview have inconsistency? How does my worldview violate the law of non-contradiction? You still haven't shown me this, nor have you even begun to touch upon it."
Josh, I'm not going to bother debating your specific worldview because it's been done a million times. You should, by now, already know where a belief in a deity breaks the law of non-contradiction (even if you don't agree with them, you've read enough in this debate to know what the arguments are).
I didn't post with the intention of getting back into that debate. I simply was asking Angela why her interpretation of scripture was more accurate than the Eastern Orthodox interpretation, a question that neither you, nor she, have specifically answered.
"(4) Did you mean to blaspheme over at my blog, or was it a mistype?"
I never blaspheme accidentally, trust me it's always intentional. However, by common definition, I'd have to accept God to blaspheme against him, and since there isn't a God, I don't' think it's technically blasphemy. Not that I really care, even it if is technically blasphemy.
-olly
Ok, Olly, I didn't answer your comment because as an unbeliever who rejects the teachings of the Holy Bible, no answer I could ever give you would satisfy you.
Even now as I type this, I know you will not be satisfied with my answer because this truth has not been revealed to you by the Holy Spirit. But for the sake of others who may be watching this discussion...
We are all to interpret Scripture using what is called the analogy of faith, which means that when we read Scripture, we are to interpret it's meaning by what the Bible says elsewhere of the same topic. For example, where the Scripture says that Jesus died for the world, we must interpret that by other passages which say that those for whom Christ died will be raised up on the last day and glorified. Since we know that not all the world individually is glorified, but that there are indeed those who will never accept the clear teaching of Christ's Gospel and will be eternally punished for their rebellion against their sovereign Creator, we know that Jesus did not die for everyone individually. Rather that among those for whom Christ died there are no ethnic or geographical distinctions made. He died for the world.
Furthermore, your original question was not even dealing with interpretations of Scripture, you asked about why the Orthodox beliefs are insane while I consider mine sane.
My beliefs are sane because they are derived from the self-authenticating infallible Word of God. Using the analogy of faith to correctly interpret this Word, I can believe that I am correct in my interpretation. Whereas the Orthodox may say that they derive their beilief from Scritpure, but they take passages out of context by neglecting the whole of God's Word and focusing on a few passages here and there. I can find plenty of Scripture texts to refute the paragraphs I posted as my original post. This is why my beliefs are more sane.
Thank you Olly, for your kind response.
I thought that by your original response you were implying that you believed my beliefs to be insane (which you probably do), but I thought you to be implying it is a rather sarcastic way.
Most athiests I have dealt with online have not been kind nor willing to discuss in a calm orderly manner, they just throw out sarcastic suckerpunches. As I thought this was what you were doing I didn't bother to respond.
Please forgive my misjudgment of you and my misunderstanding of your original comment. :)
This pregnancy is going pretty well, as I have recently entered into the second trimester, morning sickness is getting much better. Hope your wife hasn't had to go through any of that :) Congratulations on your own little gift from God (although I realize you don't see it like that--yet:)
Thanks Angela! Reading over my original response, I do see where you saw it as sarcastic. Part of it is that I really do see belief in God as insane, but in no way did I mean that comment to be as a one-off sarcastic remark. Behold the failure of the internet; lacking the subtitles that spoken language has ;).
Thanks for the congratulations! We are very excited! :) She's at 10 weeks right now, so thankfully not too much longer until we are out of the woods for miscarriages (we had a miscarriage a couple of years ago, so it's been weighing on our minds).
At any rate, thanks!
-olly
Olly,
I appreciate your honesty about what you did on my blog. Don't do that again, or your comments will be deleted and you will be banned.
However, I'm willing to assume that you really do wish to have cordial dialogue. But, some advice: if you want to have cordial dialogue, you went about it the wrong way over on my blog.
Congratulations on your pregnancy. I'm glad you're excited about being pregnant, seeing as how your worldview doesn't seem to allow for excitement about a random bag of molecules and skin. Surely you think that a baby is more than that, right? If so, how so?
P.S.--I was once a blasphemer like you, but God had mercy on me. Remembering that helps me to remember that I shouldn't wish to pummel you into the ground for being an idiot and blaspheming my Lord. But then again, I do and say idiotic things too.
"Congratulations on your pregnancy. I'm glad you're excited about being pregnant, seeing as how your worldview doesn't seem to allow for excitement about a random bag of molecules and skin. Surely you think that a baby is more than that, right? If so, how so?"
You make the same fallacious assumption that most presuppositionalists make, and that's the idea that in order for something to have emotional value, God-belief must be present. You also presume to know what my world view is when you've never actually asked, or taken the time to learn it.
Emotions are an evolutionary trait. The emotion of love, for example, is the manifestation of millions of years of evolutionary biology aimed at the protection and propagation of the species. Humans have developed certain neurobiological reactions that help us to protect our young... this is where bonding comes in between parent and child. The extension of that is that we've evolved the ability and propensity to extend those neurobiological reactions to others besides our offspring as well. I love my wife for a variety of reasons, all of which have neurobiological sources.
Of course I think a baby is more than a bag of molecules and skin, at least you were right about that. My baby, for example, is in the first stages of developing brain tissue. As that brain tissue develops, neurons within the brain begin to fire, neurochemical reactions begin to happen, and self-awareness is formed at some point.
Regardless of the question of self-awareness, I am the product of an evolutionary chain which has naturally selected those genetic traits which lead to a greater chance of survival for my progeny. Love, bonding, a need to provide: these are all a part of that.
"I appreciate your honesty about what you did on my blog. Don't do that again, or your comments will be deleted and you will be banned."
When and if you choose to ban me and delete my comments is, of course, your choice.
-olly
Well, let me be the first to say that no, it is not insane, but it actually quite biblical.
Orthodox theologians are not the only ones who have said that to know God we need to know ourselves. I have sat and listened to men such as R.C. Sproul and a host of others who have said time and time again that when we know who we really are, then we will know who God really is.
Did Jesus say that the Kingdom was within us? Last time I read the scriptures that is what He said. What did Jesus mean when he said the Kingdom is within you? Where would it be located seeing it is within us? The heart maybe?
How can St. Issac and St Pachomius be insane for the comments when Jesus himself said in Matthew 5:8 that the pure in heart would see God. Is Jesus also insane?
Were Clement of Alexandria and Evangrius insane for teaching that we are to see every person as God himself, as a living icon of God? Didn’t Jesus say that when we are judged on the last day he will judge us by how we treated others...let me let Jesus speak for Himself.....
“When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’
“Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’
“Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’
“Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Matthew 5:31-46
It really is a sad day when speaking the way the bible does about biblical things gets you labeled insane by people who see the scriptures as their highest authority.
Theophan,
I'll respond to you when I can get a chance, but as it may end up being a lengthy response and we are on vacation, it may have to wait a bit. I'm having too much fun playing in the snow with my kids to be on the computor much. But do check back, you'll get your response.
Merry Christmas!
Post a Comment
<< Home