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.
@HeroesofApostasy It was pretty standard temple architecture, built with pretty standard over-taxation of the populace. Like most governments, Solomon's was a "kleptocracy."
@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
@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.
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?
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.
@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.
@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.
I'm quite new to the whole Orthodoxy thing but I used to talk about an aspect of the Orthodox view of the fall, i. e. - that Jesus would have come regardless of the fall. this is my theory. God created the universe in Evolution and brought humanity to a point where they were ready to receive him. he did indeed single out two individuals to be the subjects of the first covenant with humanity. God planned to take them from innocence and simplicity to godliness but they were to pass a time of trial before this would happen. if Adam and Eve would have passed their test, God would have become incarnate and born of eve and the three would then raise the rest of humanity to their exalted state. any thoughts?
+chris meleca The only part of departure is about "testing." God would not need to test anyone, since he would know from the beginning. Allowing us to live out our own revelation about ourselves, perhaps. But love without freedom is a lie. So their had to be the freedom to grow and develop without being robots or puppets. But other than that aspect, I would say you are right on the mark.
@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.
@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.
@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."
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
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?
@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 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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
JOE: You simply do not know what you are talking about. The transitions are quite clear. The number of critical errors in the Old Testament tells us plainly that men were writing what they understood things to be. God could not possibly have made the glaring errors that are in the O.T. They could have only come from fallen men expressing the concepts of their own given time. In terms of Gen. the Flood would have taken place 200 years AFTER the building of the Great Pyramid in egypt.
@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.
@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.
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.
@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.
@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.
Things evolving with in a given species is one thing. A species "evolving" into a totally different species is ridiculous. Scientists can only prove that changes can occur within a given species under a relatively short test period , you cant recreate billions of years to properly prove story of "Evolution", so therefore it is not actually scientific and requires as much faith to believe than that God created everything. I choose trust God's word.
@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.
@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.
@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.
@HeroesofApostasy It was pretty standard temple architecture, built with pretty standard over-taxation of the populace. Like most governments, Solomon's was a "kleptocracy."
@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
@Barklord Thank you so much for bringing this up. It is a fascinatiing idea, which I will pursue.
@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.
@HeroesofApostasy Bears looking into, but this is not the proper venue for it.
Thank you for using your wisdom this way ;-)
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
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?
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.
@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.
@OrthodoxVideos Was not Clement one of the men who taught that much of the Old Testament was allegory, and not fact?
@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.
Archbishop Lazar never ceases to amaze! His understanding and intelligence makes him a great Father in The Church.
I'm quite new to the whole Orthodoxy thing but I used to talk about an aspect of the Orthodox view of the fall, i. e. - that Jesus would have come regardless of the fall.
this is my theory. God created the universe in Evolution and brought humanity to a point where they were ready to receive him. he did indeed single out two individuals to be the subjects of the first covenant with humanity. God planned to take them from innocence and simplicity to godliness but they were to pass a time of trial before this would happen.
if Adam and Eve would have passed their test, God would have become incarnate and born of eve and the three would then raise the rest of humanity to their exalted state.
any thoughts?
+chris meleca The only part of departure is about "testing." God would not need to test anyone, since he would know from the beginning. Allowing us to live out our own revelation about ourselves, perhaps. But love without freedom is a lie. So their had to be the freedom to grow and develop without being robots or puppets. But other than that aspect, I would say you are right on the mark.
@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.
@tgz1000 I don't think you are listening very well. Maybe you should watch the video again carefully, and read the comments carefully.
@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.
@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.
@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."
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
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?
Chuck Missler has very good videos on science and the Bible
@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 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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
JOE: You simply do not know what you are talking about. The transitions are quite clear. The number of critical errors in the Old Testament tells us plainly that men were writing what they understood things to be. God could not possibly have made the glaring errors that are in the O.T. They could have only come from fallen men expressing the concepts of their own given time. In terms of Gen. the Flood would have taken place 200 years AFTER the building of the Great Pyramid in egypt.
@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.
@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.
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.
the bible is about mans ancient past. tam surprised how many people do not understand this important fact. it is not just about Christianity.
@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.
@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.
Things evolving with in a given species is one thing. A species "evolving" into a totally different species is ridiculous. Scientists can only prove that changes can occur within a given species under a relatively short test period , you cant recreate billions of years to properly prove story of "Evolution", so therefore it is not actually scientific and requires as much faith to believe than that God created everything. I choose trust God's word.
@CristiandadRevelada ROCOR is an ultra-conservative, Fundamentalists organisation, not very much open to reality.
@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.
@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.
@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.