Orthodox Veeky Forums

How does it feel to have read only Sartre and Camus and still be in high school?

>How does it feel to be too much of a coward to accept existential nihilism as the evident truth?

Existential nihilism is just a jumping off point for entering into the Mystery of God.

>what a retard
So you don't recognize attachment to desire as a cause of suffering?

Well, time for Liturgy.

lots of those in the Veeky Forums's Christian guide

>The Silmarillion

Yeah, Tolkien had clear religious implications in it.

Great thread, friendos.

Essay on Development of Christian Doctrine by John Henry Newman is the best book on the topic.

The Orthodox reject the notion of "developing" doctrine, and believe doctrine is and should only be what Christ personally taught, and it should be understood just how the Apostles understood it. Terminology is only used to *prevent* the understanding from "developing"

needs more french niggas like bernanos and bloy

Yes, and that's exactly what he refutes.

He claims the Church understands doctrine today better than the Apostles did?

No, he claims that we magically didn't understand the apostles themselves perfectly and needed to develop the doctrine for ourselves and the orthodox just decided it was over in year x while the Catholics didn't and also that protestantism is shit.

>He stopped at nihilism

I don't think this is true.

Maybe he, I didn't. Now I'm a militant Nietzschean working to bring a genetically designed race of supermen into being so we can start the first Eugenic war. Happy ?

So he claims we understand the Apostles better than the direct and personal disciples of the Apostles?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_doctrine

Considering it took them a lot of time to even formulate the dogma of the trinity, yes. Unless you think a person who did not believe in the trinity is better in some way.
Some also didn't understand that the Eucharist is the real flesh and blood. And so on. Read the book.

Are you saying the direct and personal disciples of the Apostles were Arians?

>Some also didn't understand that the Eucharist is the real flesh and blood.
Which ones?

Like half of the first christians? Or a large part anyway.
Are you saying that the personal disciples of the apostles formulated all the dogma and aligned with them 100% a century or more before they were put to paper and proclaimed within the church and that every one of those had perfect understanding of everything and didn't need to go through the process of interpretation?

Existential nihilism is a natural reaction to becoming aware that matter is just a waiting room but it is not all there is.

>Like half of the first christians?
What leads you to conclude this?

>Are you saying that the personal disciples of the apostles formulated all the dogma
No, formulation of dogma is about protecting it from distortion. "Formulate" means to into formula--the Nicene Creed, for instance, is a formula. Formulation of dogma is ongoing; but did they believe and teach precisely the same dogma and understanding of dogma that the Nicene Creed does? Yes, absolutely.

I don't think anyone has "perfect" understanding without prayer and fasting, and it's not something you can gain by reading. I do think the bishops chosen by the Apostles had an understanding of the Apostles's teachings that was, at the very least, on par with the understanding our bishops have today. If most of them had writings, these writings would be considered an excellent witness to Orthodoxy to this day.

>What leads you to conclude this?
Books on which talk about how early christians saw their faith.
Like the ones where they talk about how they had thought that Christ would come within their lifetimes and similar things. I mean it's very easy to see how a lot of them could be wrong, we have protestants today still, as inheritors of the great heresiarchs of old. Understanding the faith took time and when a lot of it wasn't written down it was easy for various heresies to pop up and have a, compared to later, have an intelelctually (in appeareance only) stronger claim. Hence the doctrine was developed (the word development may be a bit tricky as an expression here) and formulated.
I think that a lot of those biships did have a superb understanding, but bishops often get things wrong, just like they do now, they weren't and aren't infallible.

>Like the ones where they talk about how they had thought that Christ would come within their lifetimes and similar things
Are you talking about bishops teaching this, or it just being a popular belief?

Popular belief.

>but bishops often get things wrong, just like they do now, they weren't and aren't infallible.
That has nothing to do with being wrong in the "current year" sense and being on the "wrong side of history" as far as some kind of "doctrinal development" goes. If dogma were being debated today, I'd put a lot more trust in a Church Father than a dozen regular bishops from today.

Then I'm unsure how this has to do with how the Church understands dogma, since that is defined by how its taught and experienced. There are tons of popular beliefs in the Church today with no basis.

>If dogma were being debated today, I'd put a lot more trust in a Church Father than a dozen regular bishops from today.
So would I, what's the problem?
I'm not quoting some random progressive cardinal like Marx or Cupich and am not coming from that point of view, I'm mainly coming from John Henry Newman, as stated before.
Also, a Church Father is not just any bishop who lived at that time.
Popular belief enters into people and at times becomes a problem. That is, in part, the reason why the teaching exists.
But the doctrine isn't just about dogma in itself. As Newman put it, "The Word became flesh, and we need to understand what Word, became and flesh here mean". Some got it wrong and doctrine for xyz got it right and has continued to grow in understanding throughout history and hasn't stopped as proof of the living body of Christ.
Unless I'm badly misreading Newman, which I hope I am not.

>Also, a Church Father is not just any bishop who lived at that time.
He's also not someone who has access to "developments"

> and has continued to grow in understanding throughout history
How is our understanding of that mystical event better than the early Church's?

I'm not an orthodox christian, or even a christian at all, but I did read Seraphim Rose's "Nihilism" and found it pretty interesting.

For those that haven't read, the premise is that there are 4 forms of Nihilism (rejecting the truth of god). These include Liberalism (essentially christian values without any metaphysical beliefs), materialism (secular attempts to explain the world purely through science), vitalism (attempts to replace God with a greater purpose) and purely destructive nihilism which seeks to destroy the world.

I think it's a bit reductive to lump together all non-christian ideologies into one of four groups, but his critiques of liberalism and materialism are sound. He does make the mistake of taking marx at his word, ie that communism is somehow materialism (spoiler, it isn't), but his concept of Vitalism is pretty poor. He's lumping together too many different things. Similarly, I don't think "destructive nihilism" really exists, and has too much of a supernatural, "the devil rules the world" feel too it.

>How is our understanding of that mystical event better than the early Church's?
That particular one? I don't think it is.
>He's also not someone who access to "developments"
How would you call Justin introducing philosophy into the Christian faith? Or introduction of the Purgatory? Or the Assumption of Mary? Or Immaculate Conception? Or Tome to Flavian?

The Great Heresies by Hilaire Belloc is kind of similar, but he is not focused on nihilism, but Arianism, Mohammedanism (Islam), Albigensianism, Protestantism, and the Modern Attack.

>Seraphim Rose is being discussed on Veeky Forums

There are like 4 authors in total whom Orthodox talk about, 1 being Dostoevsky. Seraphim Rose is a common mention.

Seraphim Rose is a bit of a ROCOR meme. He had some pretty whacko ideas. He was also a tollhouser.

He was a good monk, though.

>That particular one? I don't think it is.
Then why do you say our understanding of "the Word became flesh" continued to grow?

>How would you call Justin introducing philosophy into the Christian faith?
I think he used it as a tactic to argue with pagans, I don't think he was using it as a tool to "improve the understanding" of dogma among people were already Christians. Justin Martyr didn't change any understanding of dogma.

>Or introduction of the Purgatory? Or the Assumption of Mary? Or Immaculate Conception? Or Tome to Flavian?
I'm Orthodox, so we reject the third three. The last is not any new understanding of dogma, it's just an argument for a semantic expression. Oriental Orthodox reject the Tome, but they have the same understanding apart from semantics.

Dostoevsky was also a Toll-Houser

He's more popular with American Orthodox in general. My parish is Greek, but sells books by him.

*the first three

That is, the Catholic idea of the Assumption, which is in Mary's life. We celebrate it, but as something that happened *after* her Dormition, not while she was still breathing.

>Then why do you say our understanding of "the Word became flesh" continued to grow?
Understanding in general of various things. That one has interesting things as far as Aquinas (being whose essence is existance) goes and the word Logos being taken from the stoics who took it from Plato. So you understand it better because you know what it used to mean for the pagan and how the Christian concept of Logos builds on the stoics and gives it a new meaning.
>Justin Martyr didn't change any understanding of dogma.
Doctrine is more than dogma. He introduced pagan philosophy to Christian theology which was taken up by other Fathers.
What is a Toll Houser?
Well most Orthodox in general seem to keep with a few authors, both here on the chan and other places where I've talked to you guys.

"Logos" is a Greek translations of Hebrew, which is just "Word". The Word of God, in the Old Testament, is the masculine term for the Wisdom of God (referred to, for instance, in Proverbs 8 and 9).

The Christian conception of the Word of God is *nothing* like the Stoic conception of Logos. In fact, Saint Emperor Justinian was the one who wrote the anathema against the Stoic conception of the Logos (adapted in an Ecumenical Council) s being meme's in the Church by syncretists. The Stoic conception of the Logos is basically a common mind overcoming his schizophrenia.

>What is a Toll Houser?
Someone who subscribes to the teaching of Ariel Toll-Houses
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_toll_house

>What is a Toll Houser?

Tollhouses, basically the idea that after you die the soul goes through a series of checkpoints where demons try to fuck you up to prevent you from going to heaven.

I'm not sure how the tradition crept in.

>Doctrine is more than dogma
They're synonymous in Orthodoxy

>He introduced pagan philosophy to Christian theology which was taken up by other Fathers.
The Church Fathers endorsed pagan philosophy as training wheels, so to speaks.

It's taught in the Liturgy, it didn't "creep in".

See
orthodoxwiki.org/Aerial_Toll-Houses#Liturgical_Evidence

That's actually exactly what defines something as an official teaching in Orthodoxy

>The Christian conception of the Word of God is *nothing* like the Stoic conception of Logos.
"Stoic philosophy began with Zeno of Citium c. 300 BCE, in which the logos was the active reason pervading and animating the universe. It was conceived of as material, and is usually identified with God or Nature. The Stoics also referred to the seminal logos ("logos spermatikos"), or the law of generation in the universe, which was the principle of the active reason working in inanimate matter. Humans, too, each possess a portion of the divine logos."
I couldn't find the exact quote in Coplestons' History of Philosophy, it's pictures and I can't ctrl+f so this is just Wiki.
I don't know about you, but this is quite similar to how we see certain aspects of divinity and why it was not a translation of the Hebrew word, it was a diliberate usage of a well established philosophical concept given a new meaning.
God is the principle of active reason, but is not material and is a person, or rather three persons. I find it quite clear why the evangelist, who was obviously well educated, connected the Hebrew and Stoic principle in Christ.
The Catholic teaching does not hold when the assumption took place, only that it did. Some think before, some at the moment of her death.
>The Church Fathers endorsed pagan philosophy as training wheels, so to speaks.
They actively adapted it to make God something bound to reason and the world as well as because the pagans did lay the groundwork for Christianity in philosophy. But Augustine isn't accepted by you guys.

The Logos was the organized principle of the universe. In Heraclitus's conception, this meant the common mind (which each human mind is a portion of). In Pythagoras's conception, it meant the underlying mathematical principle of reality. Stoicism combined both of them.

Christ is the Word of God(compare Proverbs 3:19 and Psalm 33:6)), as described in Proverbs 8 and 9.. Of course, if Christ were described as Wisdom ("Sophia" in Greek), you'd probably also say that came from pagan philosophy, since Sophia was a big concept among the pagans. Christ is to be called the Word because Old Testament Scripture refers to him as such, not because Stoics did. The Word means the Word of God, not the pagan Logos (which in pagan philosophy means "reason", not "word" as in something uttered, but it's also the Greek word for "word", and is used as such in the Septuagint).

>Some think before, some at the moment of her death.
In Orthodoxy, it was after she was buried. This has nothing to do with developing the understanding of Christ's teachings, it just has to do with an event that occurred and was witnessed.

>They actively adapted it to make God something bound to reason
Not in the East, certainly

>But Augustine isn't accepted by you guys.
We think he erred in saying death was a punishment that God condemns us to for Adam's sin, but otherwise he's totally on the level. He's officially a Saint and a Church Father.

>Christ is to be called the Word because Old Testament Scripture refers to him as such, not because Stoics did.
I don't see how these two necessarily contradict each other. I hold that John used it to meet the two worlds, the pagan and the Jewish, for the spread of Christianity. It is the word for reason and word as you say, which is why I think he wrote it in the way that he did.
>Not in the East, certainly
But very much so in the West.
>We think he erred in saying death was a punishment that God condemns us to for Adam's sin, but otherwise he's totally on the level. He's officially a Saint and a Church Father.
This is the most positive comment I've ever seen on Augustine from an Orthodox person. Him being a Church Father is for the most part denied, as far as his theology goes, which is natural considering he is the most important Western Father whose theology is the main theological force behind the Latin Church, even still. Aquinas is there only to build on him.
How do you interpret the reason why death exists? I always saw it as a very clear explanaion, as read in the Bible.

>Terminology is only used to *prevent* the understanding from "developing"

This is clearly not true though. The early Church fathers struggled to express the doctrine of the Incarnation with their terminologies borrowed from different Greek philosophies. It wasn't until the Council of Nicea that the doctrine of the Incarnation was given a settled terminology, so it is certainly true that the terminology used to explicate doctrine can develop. The Catholic Church rejects the notion that doctrine itself can develop - this idea was condemned explicitly by Pope Pius X, I believe.

>We think he erred in saying death was a punishment that God condemns us to for Adam's sin

Do you think St. Paul erred when he said it?

Also, the Catholic Church teaches that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle (St. John), so that there is no further doctrine after that. This is what we call the "deposit of the faith".
"Development" only applies to the philosophical terminology used to expound doctrine, not doctrine itself. Modernists tried to say that doctrine itself could develop, but they were condemned in no uncertain terms. So the Catholic and Orthodox understanding of sacred doctrine are not opposed on this matter. We certainly don't think that any new doctrine has been introduced into the Church after the apostles, or that the Church teaches anything different to what the apostles themselves taught.

>christianity
>not the hallicunations of stone-age farmers
>not an oppressive instrument of the powerful

>not the hallicunations of stone-age farmers
It originates from the height of the Roman Empire, not the stone age. And some of the most learned men of all times have been Christian.

>not an oppressive instrument of the powerful
it empowered the poor and the slaves more than any religion or philosophy in the history of the world

>Him being a Church Father is for the most part denied
It's affirmed in an Ecumenical Council. Orthodox who say he isn't a Church Father are just being contrarian edgelords who don't like him because Catholics like him.

Saint John used it because using "Wisdom" is feminine and referred to as a she (in both Greek and Hebrew), and Jesus is a man, so he didn't want to create confusion.

>How do you interpret the reason why death exists?
Human nature is innately mortal. Immorality and incorruptibility are divine properties than humans can partake of, but ceased to with the fall.

He didn't

They were combating heresies, so they used added terms to prevent doctrines from being heretically expressed.

> It wasn't until the Council of Nicea that the doctrine of the Incarnation was given a settled terminology
There is no introduced terminology there except for homoousion, which was a term that was deliberated on for quite some time to ensure it didn't change understanding, and that is not in part of the Creed describing the Incarnation, it's in the earlier part explaining the Word's relationship with the Father.

Was rejecting ancestral paganism for a new religion the firs step towards postmoderism and nihilism?

What did you think of his arguments/opinions on Stirner?

>We know about these torments in great detail because they were revealed to Gregory, the disciple of the holy monk St. Basil the New, who lived in the first half of the Tenth century. Gregory in his vision learned about the hour of death and the passing through torments of a woman known as the Blessed Theodora

Imagine Dante was a greek monk

>Was rejecting ancestral paganism for a new religion the firs step towards postmoderism and nihilism?
That's Nietzsche's argument, which Seraphim Rose not only seeks to refute, but to show Nietzsche himself only gave nihilism more power, his "cure" was only an inoculation.

>What did you think of his arguments/opinions on Stirner?
He doesn't confront Stirner except a couple of times in passing (apparently he was going to write more on him later, but got more interested in purely spiritual writings). He only addresses Stirner as a logical conclusion of the times, of liberalism and realism, as opposed to a liberal or realist holding self-contradictory beliefs.

>That's Nietzsche's argument, which Seraphim Rose not only seeks to refute, but to show Nietzsche himself only gave nihilism more power, his "cure" was only an inoculation.

Does he successful refute it in your view? Im not familiar with Neitzsches work but even if he did not cure the problem he was only continuing what had be started by Christians and those other converting religions.

>He only addresses Stirner as a logical conclusion of the times, of liberalism and realism, as opposed to a liberal or realist holding self-contradictory beliefs.

Do you agree with that assessment?

>Im not familiar with Neitzsches work but even if he did not cure the problem he was only continuing what had be started by Christians and those other converting religions.
I think we have to ask what the problem is, and Father Seraphim Rose sees it quite different from Nietzsche (although ironically, he quotes Nietzsche on nihilism to support his perspective).

>Do you agree with that assessment?
I'm sure Stirner would, so yes. Stirner was join addressing what he thought were major contradictions within leftist and liberal ideology, such as dismissing God and metaphysics, but still adhering to ideas which were ultimately metaphysical, only disguised to appear otherwise.

You ever read the old testament? There's a few less elves but it's all there.

>I think we have to ask what the problem is, and Father Seraphim Rose sees it quite different from Nietzsche

What is the problems/difference?
I saw it as the beginning of the idea that religious truths can be absolute - as they were replaceable

Seraphim Rose sees nihilism as caused by just the opposite: the turning of truth into something that is an object to be controlled (instead of living and showing itself), and from there the descent into the belief that truth is not absolute but each person has his own truth.

A is a result of A because A causes B

>Seraphim Rose sees nihilism as caused by just the opposite: the turning of truth into something that is an object to be controlled (instead of living and showing itself), and from there the descent into the belief that truth is not absolute

Surely abandoning traditional religions for foreign ones that were often imposed would be a case of that.

Just started reading both Dubliners and Notes from Underground. Lukewarm on the former, loving the latter. Am I too stupid for Joyce?

Prior to Christianity Rome was following a multiple of religions from all over the world, including many Eastern ones. The idea of a homogeneous "traditional religion" didn't exist, except for state ceremonies.

There's no confusion involved from it. In fact, it would be confusing if the hellenic Jew who wrote the gospel for the educated Greek world in mind, used a well known philosophical concept with an immediately clear connection did not use the word exactly because it's a synthesis of both worlds. Is God not the eternal law? As we agree that he is, why would he use the word which would instantly be associated with it, by his target audience? In the same way how Matthew wrote for the Hebrew and hence had all those genealogies.
On top of that, the word is in my own language feminine and that in no way makes it confusing.

How is human nature innately mortal if humans were once immortal? And that immortality was lost due to sin, for which man was banished, which is called the fall.
How is this different from Augustine?
Trinity itself is new terminology developed later and not only to combat heresies, but so as people might understand the thing better.
Considering Dubliners is easy to read and enjoy, who is reading babies first literature, I would assume you are just a pleb. Taste will come with time if you persist in reading literature.

Joyce is great, but I wouldn't call him a Christian writer, Christianity as a theme in his work is mainly one of mockery

start with the greeks

The first question is, where do your interests lie?

>Prior to Christianity Rome was following a multiple of religions from all over the world, including many Eastern ones.

There were many pagan cultures outside of just Rome and secondly syncretic polythism was still fairly traditional.

"Traditional" how, exactly? They were involved into a ton of eastern mystery cults that didn't allow non-members to participate.

>They were involved into a ton of eastern mystery cults that didn't allow non-members to participate.

In same way Hinduism is the traditional religion of Inida. Just because it doesnt follow the pattern of Semetic monothiesm and had some secret rites to it doesnt mean there wasnt any uniformity or regularity to it.

Hinduism has changed dramatically over the course of its existence.

Hinduism would parallel more with the Egyptian religion, than with the massive, multi-national empire of Rome and the religious practices it encompassed.

"Just because it doesnt follow the pattern of Semetic monothiesm and had some secret rites to it doesnt mean there wasnt any uniformity or regularity to it."

Changing practices and rites does not mean tradition ceases to exist - indeed if we go by that definition Christianity ceased to have a tradition shortly after the resurrection. Persecuting worshipers and coercing conversion to a foreign however does.

I mean radical changes in practice and belief.

>I mean radical changes in practice and belief.
But still within the same spectrum - evolutionary changes if anything.

Tradition can still be present without semitic notions of unchanging dogma.

Not in Rome. Religions there were like fads, they came and went and people were always looking for the latest, exotic curiosity.

>hey came and went and people were always looking for the latest, exotic curiosity.

All within the same framework of syncretic polythism.

As an axiom do you disagree with

"Religious tradition can still be present without semitic notions of unchanging dogma."

Hinduism isn't even a single religion.

No, what I do disagree with is the idea that Roman religion was about tradition, except as state function. Roman religion, in the period prior to Christianity, was about following the newest fad cult, or more likely a dozen of them.