|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 18, 2019 18:42:59 GMT
(Upon request of karl ) I won't try to talk here much, but rather put some material that you can read. Instead of explaining by myself, I'll try to answer on question. But, firstly, I'd like to anticipate some asks. Before all this we need to determinate terms. The Russian Orthodoxy Church is current dominated religious structure in Russia that is an institute of Orthodoxy (one of the branches) and it mostly widespread in many Eastern Europe countries. The Ukrainian Orthodoxy Church is the church that has been legalized lately by the patriarch of Constantinople. The separated church from the Russian Orthodoxy Church from 1992, it wasn't renowned beside Ukraine at first, but it became legal in this year. The Russian Church don't accept legalization of it. The most problem appears now is - was the legalization corrected? And - as the more general question for many other fields in social religious life - who must accept the denomination? All right, I put some links here (if ya'll don't mind): TheGuardian: linkChristianityToday: link And my beloved one - Fox Nеws link
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Feb 18, 2019 18:52:09 GMT
I think diamond said there is no division in orthodoxy. So do these churches you mention work together or even like each other?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 18, 2019 19:09:48 GMT
I think diamond said there is no division in orthodoxy. So do these churches you mention work together or even like each other? Well, it is a good question, but I'm not sure to answer it correctly. Even if it seems simple - cooperation, or gaining anticipations - true relations is in the field of politics. This politician involvement is a great barrier to understand the core reasons. On a surface, there are more anticipations between churches, and they are almost each of them caused by nationalistic questions. Some of Ukrainian enormously hate Russia. The hatred was grown on some reasons, but according to my opinion - same anticipations are widespread not only between Russia and Ukraine, but many others countries, like the most example Palestine & Israel, Britain & Ireland, Germany & France. Today some of those problems thank God have vanished already, and I guess that it's possible to positively solve it. However, many of nationalists in Ukraine don't want to even make the relationship less hatred. Sometimes it seems that the hatred is a style of living by some people. I don't accept this manner of thinking, hatred is merely a psychiatric issue, rather than a healthy life purpose. Now relationship between churches are not going to be good, because the followers of Ukrainian Church have been capturing the sacrament places and monasteries from the adepts of the Russian Church. And - that is obvious - it's not human at all. Summary, there's no freedom for believers, and this is not good in no way. This is my personal position - to influence in a some way to the situation to decrease anti-human behavior. What is the one barriers here - the war on the South-West. So, as I said, the politics not only tied together problems, but made it to be more complex to resolve.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Feb 18, 2019 19:27:56 GMT
I think diamond said there is no division in orthodoxy. So do these churches you mention work together or even like each other? Well, it is a good question, but I'm not sure to answer it correctly. Even if it seems simple - cooperation, or gaining anticipations - true relations is in the field of politics. This politician involvement is a great barrier to understand the core reasons. On a surface, there are more anticipations between churches, and they are almost each of them caused by nationalistic questions. Some of Ukrainian enormously hate Russia. The hatred was grown on some reasons, but according to my opinion - same anticipations are widespread not only between Russia and Ukraine, but many others countries, like the most example Palestine & Israel, Britain & Ireland, Germany & France. Today some of those problems thank God have vanished already, and I guess that it's possible to positively solve it. However, many of nationalists in Ukraine don't want to even make the relationship less hatred. Sometimes it seems that the hatred is a style of living by some people. I don't accept this manner of thinking, hatred is merely a psychiatric issue, rather than a healthy life purpose. Now relationship between churches are not going to be good, because the followers of Ukrainian Church have been capturing the sacrament places and monasteries from the adepts of the Russian Church. And - that is obvious - it's not human at all. Summary, there's no freedom for believers, and this is not good in no way. This is my personal position - to influence in a some way to the situation to decrease anti-human behavior. What is the one barriers here - the war on the South-West. So, as I said, the politics not only tied together problems, but made it to be more complex to resolve. Aww, that's quite sad that that's going on between Ukraine and Russia. I agree with you that it's not human at all. So you're saying some hate each other and some love each other with the 2 churches? They should just look passed their differences and love each other if they're both orthodoxy Also is oriental orthodox another separate entity or they get along with orthodox churches?
|
|
|
Post by karl on Feb 18, 2019 19:38:02 GMT
(Upon request of karl ) I won't try to talk here much, but rather put some material that you can read. Instead of explaining by myself, I'll try to answer on question. But, firstly, I'd like to anticipate some asks. Before all this we need to determinate terms. The Russian Orthodoxy Church is current dominated religious structure in Russia that is an institute of Orthodoxy (one of the branches) and it mostly widespread in many Eastern Europe countries. The Ukrainian Orthodoxy Church is the church that has been legalized lately by the patriarch of Constantinople. The separated church from the Russian Orthodoxy Church from 1992, it wasn't renowned beside Ukraine at first, but it became legal in this year. The Russian Church don't accept legalization of it. The most problem appears now is - was the legalization corrected? And - as the more general question for many other fields in social religious life - who must accept the denomination? All right, I put some links here (if ya'll don't mind): TheGuardian: linkChristianityToday: link And my beloved one - Fox Nеws link
Thanks for the links.
Imagine a protestant and an orthodox Christian being asked the following question:
"What is the right way to live your life?"
How would their answers differ?
And would a Ukrainian and a Russian orthodox be likely to give the same answer?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 19, 2019 11:01:05 GMT
Well, it is a good question, but I'm not sure to answer it correctly. Even if it seems simple - cooperation, or gaining anticipations - true relations is in the field of politics. This politician involvement is a great barrier to understand the core reasons. On a surface, there are more anticipations between churches, and they are almost each of them caused by nationalistic questions. Some of Ukrainian enormously hate Russia. The hatred was grown on some reasons, but according to my opinion - same anticipations are widespread not only between Russia and Ukraine, but many others countries, like the most example Palestine & Israel, Britain & Ireland, Germany & France. Today some of those problems thank God have vanished already, and I guess that it's possible to positively solve it. However, many of nationalists in Ukraine don't want to even make the relationship less hatred. Sometimes it seems that the hatred is a style of living by some people. I don't accept this manner of thinking, hatred is merely a psychiatric issue, rather than a healthy life purpose. Now relationship between churches are not going to be good, because the followers of Ukrainian Church have been capturing the sacrament places and monasteries from the adepts of the Russian Church. And - that is obvious - it's not human at all. Summary, there's no freedom for believers, and this is not good in no way. This is my personal position - to influence in a some way to the situation to decrease anti-human behavior. What is the one barriers here - the war on the South-West. So, as I said, the politics not only tied together problems, but made it to be more complex to resolve. Aww, that's quite sad that that's going on between Ukraine and Russia. I agree with you that it's not human at all. So you're saying some hate each other and some love each other with the 2 churches? They should just look passed their differences and love each other if they're both orthodoxy Also is oriental orthodox another separate entity or they get along with orthodox churches? The politics is a serious obstacle for getting along with each other not only for the churches. The repression inside one of the church can make a bad precedent for the other one. So, if the Russian orthodox church is suffering now, it might lay on the other Russian denominations, protestants included. And this is surely not good. The relationships between many orthodox branches are various, almost everyone of them are based on political relationship. This view allows me to presume that the modern orthodoxy = nationalism. The ancient orthodoxy (Cappodician Fathers, John the Damascus) is close to Protestantism (except for blessing children and doing some rituals), that even Luther and some other Renaissance protestants claimed, but the far orthodoxy goes, the far from the original Christian views it passes. As soon as the certain politician problems are be solved, I'm sure, the problems between the churches will be vanished.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 19, 2019 11:15:52 GMT
(Upon request of karl ) I won't try to talk here much, but rather put some material that you can read. Instead of explaining by myself, I'll try to answer on question. But, firstly, I'd like to anticipate some asks. Before all this we need to determinate terms. The Russian Orthodoxy Church is current dominated religious structure in Russia that is an institute of Orthodoxy (one of the branches) and it mostly widespread in many Eastern Europe countries. The Ukrainian Orthodoxy Church is the church that has been legalized lately by the patriarch of Constantinople. The separated church from the Russian Orthodoxy Church from 1992, it wasn't renowned beside Ukraine at first, but it became legal in this year. The Russian Church don't accept legalization of it. The most problem appears now is - was the legalization corrected? And - as the more general question for many other fields in social religious life - who must accept the denomination? All right, I put some links here (if ya'll don't mind): TheGuardian: linkChristianityToday: link And my beloved one - Fox Nеws link
Thanks for the links.
Imagine a protestant and an orthodox Christian being asked the following question:
"What is the right way to live your life?"
How would their answers differ?
And would a Ukrainian and a Russian orthodox be likely to give the same answer?
1) The protestant would answer that we needed to follow Bible as the most relevant source of our reliable knowledge. And the orthodox believer would answer that we needed to follow the practical side of Christianity... I think this should be explained more detailed. ...Orthodoxy is trying to follow the main principles of the Christian liturgy, so they try to save the liturgy (that is how we practically praise Lord) in his first original view. We know that the liturgy was changing through the time, but all those differences the orthodoxy was trying to accumulate all those changing. Some of Christian during the history were trying to serve liturgy as it was in agapes (the evenings of love in the very Christian gatherings), but its development through the history they assume as important too. For example, there's a thing as hymnography or a numbers of songs in liturgy, and they are trying to save the songs. And so on and so on. Many things that were during the history they tried to save. So, you can imagine the orthodoxy as the museum of almost all of it. Western views, usually, are directed to practical reflection side (the wonderful example is Descartes), while Eastern, mainly, to just save it in its original views (an example of Heidegger here would be good, I think). 2) I think they would be agree at some points like Jesus = God, God is Trinity, and God is love, but they would separate on how to serve & please God, and what exactly principles they need to follow. Well, I'm sorry if I haven't answered it in a good, and for my not well grammar.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Feb 19, 2019 20:47:40 GMT
Thanks for the links.
Imagine a protestant and an orthodox Christian being asked the following question:
"What is the right way to live your life?"
How would their answers differ?
And would a Ukrainian and a Russian orthodox be likely to give the same answer?
1) The protestant would answer that we needed to follow Bible as the most relevant source of our reliable knowledge. And the orthodox believer would answer that we needed to follow the practical side of Christianity... I think this should be explained more detailed. ...Orthodoxy is trying to follow the main principles of the Christian liturgy, so they try to save the liturgy (that is how we practically praise Lord) in his first original view. We know that the liturgy was changing through the time, but all those differences the orthodoxy was trying to accumulate all those changing. Some of Christian during the history were trying to serve liturgy as it was in agapes (the evenings of love in the very Christian gatherings), but its development through the history they assume as important too. For example, there's a thing as hymnography or a numbers of songs in liturgy, and they are trying to save the songs. And so on and so on. Many things that were during the history they tried to save. So, you can imagine the orthodoxy as the museum of almost all of it. Western views, usually, are directed to practical reflection side (the wonderful example is Descartes), while Eastern, mainly, to just save it in its original views (an example of Heidegger here would be good, I think). 2) I think they would be agree at some points like Jesus = God, God is Trinity, and God is love, but they would separate on how to serve & please God, and what exactly principles they need to follow. Well, I'm sorry if I haven't answered it in a good, and for my not well grammar.
I think you provided a good explanation. I have more questions about orthodoxy, though.
1. How does it regard apocryphal scriptures?
2. I once heard that it regards Jesus life as an ideal for his followers to emulate. Is that correct?
3. Martin Luther stressed that an individual can connect directly with God through prayer, not having to use the church as a medium. Is this a view that orthodoxy shares?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 21, 2019 19:36:56 GMT
1) The protestant would answer that we needed to follow Bible as the most relevant source of our reliable knowledge. And the orthodox believer would answer that we needed to follow the practical side of Christianity... I think this should be explained more detailed. ...Orthodoxy is trying to follow the main principles of the Christian liturgy, so they try to save the liturgy (that is how we practically praise Lord) in his first original view. We know that the liturgy was changing through the time, but all those differences the orthodoxy was trying to accumulate all those changing. Some of Christian during the history were trying to serve liturgy as it was in agapes (the evenings of love in the very Christian gatherings), but its development through the history they assume as important too. For example, there's a thing as hymnography or a numbers of songs in liturgy, and they are trying to save the songs. And so on and so on. Many things that were during the history they tried to save. So, you can imagine the orthodoxy as the museum of almost all of it. Western views, usually, are directed to practical reflection side (the wonderful example is Descartes), while Eastern, mainly, to just save it in its original views (an example of Heidegger here would be good, I think). 2) I think they would be agree at some points like Jesus = God, God is Trinity, and God is love, but they would separate on how to serve & please God, and what exactly principles they need to follow. Well, I'm sorry if I haven't answered it in a good, and for my not well grammar.
I think you provided a good explanation. I have more questions about orthodoxy, though.
1. How does it regard apocryphal scriptures?
2. I once heard that it regards Jesus life as an ideal for his followers to emulate. Is that correct?
3. Martin Luther stressed that an individual can connect directly with God through prayer, not having to use the church as a medium. Is this a view that orthodoxy shares?
1. Orthodoxy uses some apocryphes as a source to understanding philosophy of the Fathers (as apologists, and so the rest of the other). Actually, the center principles are in Credo which is familiar with Catholics, but Orthodoxy uses the very first version of it, that came from 325-381 years A.C. I know that some elements of liturgy was taken from gnostics (or trying to be corrected Gnostic elements had influenced on developing of liturgy). The more information about liturgical originating I took from "The Orthodox Liturgy" of the protestant Hugh Webrew. (I found that this book is enough widespread among historians and theologians of liturgy in local regions.) It's just an opinion of mine, I stacked with many apocryphal texts, but I found them to be dumby for Christianity. For example, "Gospels for Thomas", and "Gospels from Mary". The first one is nothing, but a magical story for children, and the second one is very Gnostics. Concerning the other texts, they probably were written by Gnostics; too many elements of complex onthology they had. 2. I don't even know what to answer. The question is tough, I think. Honestly. I'll try to find some on that later. Anyway, thank you for your asking. 3. No, I don't think so. This is a reason, why many people are against non-protestants churches. Nevertheless, Orthodoxy tries to follow Apostles rules about bless some of teachers among the others (like Paul, Peter, Luke and the other did during their journeys. Acts 1-28). I'm not sure that the points below will be perfectly correct, but trying to present my own vision of why priests institute is still important for the Orthodoxy, I think that the versions are valid at least: a. Teaching about the Grace. There's a thing in Orthodoxy (and the other Catholical-type churches as well) that's known as the Grace. This thing is some king of energy, but it doesn't concern to physical, and not too much to the philosophical concept of it (in "Metaphysics", for example). Teaching of it's more toward to Protestant view, than Catholics, and at the same time it's not so overquestioned as in Catholics (there were not so many discussions about this as in Catholics). It corresponds to the liturgy more. So, briefly, we can say that participating liturgy we're reaching (or we're getting closer to) the Grace. Plus, it relates to the Holy Sacraments that as Baptization, and Communion. b. Traditions. Orthodoxy is too tight with the Traditions (as the Traditions itself, and as traditionalists views too). As I said it's something like a museum. So, priest practice as it went from Apostles times is still in Orthodoxy now. c. Historical circumstances. That days not many were able to read, and some naughty people were required, and as long as it was necessary, they continued to make this way (being priests). This principle became too typical that it became a habit.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Feb 21, 2019 19:56:15 GMT
I think you provided a good explanation. I have more questions about orthodoxy, though.
1. How does it regard apocryphal scriptures?
2. I once heard that it regards Jesus life as an ideal for his followers to emulate. Is that correct?
3. Martin Luther stressed that an individual can connect directly with God through prayer, not having to use the church as a medium. Is this a view that orthodoxy shares?
1. Orthodoxy uses some apocryphes as a source to understanding philosophy of the Fathers (as apologists, and so the rest of the other). Actually, the center principles are in Credo which is familiar with Catholics, but Orthodoxy uses the very first version of it, that came from 325-381 years A.C. I know that some elements of liturgy was taken from gnostics (or trying to be corrected Gnostic elements had influenced on developing of liturgy). The more information about liturgical originating I took from "The Orthodox Liturgy" of the protestant Hugh Webrew. (I found that this book is enough widespread among historians and theologians of liturgy in local regions.) It's just an opinion of mine, I stacked with many apocryphal texts, but I found them to be dumby for Christianity. For example, "Gospels for Thomas", and "Gospels from Mary". The first one is nothing, but a magical story for children, and the second one is very Gnostics. Concerning the other texts, they probably were written by Gnostics; too many elements of complex onthology they had. 2. I don't even know what to answer. The question is tough, I think. Honestly. I'll try to find some on that later. Anyway, thank you for your asking. 3. No, I don't think so. This is a reason, why many people are against non-protestants churches. Nevertheless, Orthodoxy tries to follow Apostles rules about bless some of teachers among the others (like Paul, Peter, Luke and the other did during their journeys. Acts 1-28). I'm not sure that the points below will be perfectly correct, but trying to present my own vision of why priests institute is still important for the Orthodoxy, I think that the versions are valid at least: a. Teaching about the Grace. There's a thing in Orthodoxy (and the other Catholical-type churches as well) that's known as the Grace. This thing is some king of energy, but it doesn't concern to physical, and not too much to the philosophical concept of it (in "Metaphysics", for example). Teaching of it's more toward to Protestant view, than Catholics, and at the same time it's not so overquestioned as in Catholics (there were not so many discussions about this as in Catholics). It corresponds to the liturgy more. So, briefly, we can say that participating liturgy we're reaching (or we're getting closer to) the Grace. Plus, it relates to the Holy Sacraments that as Baptization, and Communion. b. Traditions. Orthodoxy is too tight with the Traditions (as the Traditions itself, and as traditionalists views too). As I said it's something like a museum. So, priest practice as it went from Apostles times is still in Orthodoxy now. c. Historical circumstances. That days not many were able to read, and some naughty people were required, and as long as it was necessary, they continued to make this way (being priests). This principle became too typical that it became a habit.
Thank you for your elaborate answer.
I just have to add that we are in utter, complete disagreement on the gospel of Thomas, which I regard as one of the wisest books ever written.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 21, 2019 19:59:24 GMT
1. Orthodoxy uses some apocryphes as a source to understanding philosophy of the Fathers (as apologists, and so the rest of the other). Actually, the center principles are in Credo which is familiar with Catholics, but Orthodoxy uses the very first version of it, that came from 325-381 years A.C. I know that some elements of liturgy was taken from gnostics (or trying to be corrected Gnostic elements had influenced on developing of liturgy). The more information about liturgical originating I took from "The Orthodox Liturgy" of the protestant Hugh Webrew. (I found that this book is enough widespread among historians and theologians of liturgy in local regions.) It's just an opinion of mine, I stacked with many apocryphal texts, but I found them to be dumby for Christianity. For example, "Gospels for Thomas", and "Gospels from Mary". The first one is nothing, but a magical story for children, and the second one is very Gnostics. Concerning the other texts, they probably were written by Gnostics; too many elements of complex onthology they had. 2. I don't even know what to answer. The question is tough, I think. Honestly. I'll try to find some on that later. Anyway, thank you for your asking. 3. No, I don't think so. This is a reason, why many people are against non-protestants churches. Nevertheless, Orthodoxy tries to follow Apostles rules about bless some of teachers among the others (like Paul, Peter, Luke and the other did during their journeys. Acts 1-28). I'm not sure that the points below will be perfectly correct, but trying to present my own vision of why priests institute is still important for the Orthodoxy, I think that the versions are valid at least: a. Teaching about the Grace. There's a thing in Orthodoxy (and the other Catholical-type churches as well) that's known as the Grace. This thing is some king of energy, but it doesn't concern to physical, and not too much to the philosophical concept of it (in "Metaphysics", for example). Teaching of it's more toward to Protestant view, than Catholics, and at the same time it's not so overquestioned as in Catholics (there were not so many discussions about this as in Catholics). It corresponds to the liturgy more. So, briefly, we can say that participating liturgy we're reaching (or we're getting closer to) the Grace. Plus, it relates to the Holy Sacraments that as Baptization, and Communion. b. Traditions. Orthodoxy is too tight with the Traditions (as the Traditions itself, and as traditionalists views too). As I said it's something like a museum. So, priest practice as it went from Apostles times is still in Orthodoxy now. c. Historical circumstances. That days not many were able to read, and some naughty people were required, and as long as it was necessary, they continued to make this way (being priests). This principle became too typical that it became a habit.
Thank you for your elaborate answer.
I just have to add that we are in utter, complete disagreement on the gospel of Thomas, which I regard as one of the wisest books ever written.
Whoa... Unexpectedly... I need to say that my surface "analysis" of Thomas wasn't good. However, trying to stay punctual and responsible for my words I won't pass my previous thoughts about the book.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Feb 21, 2019 20:20:10 GMT
Thank you for your elaborate answer.
I just have to add that we are in utter, complete disagreement on the gospel of Thomas, which I regard as one of the wisest books ever written.
Whoa... Unexpectedly... I need to say that my surface "analysis" of Thomas wasn't good. However, trying to stay punctual and responsible for my words I won't pass my previous thoughts about the book.
That's not a problem. We can just agree upon disagreeing.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Feb 21, 2019 21:06:50 GMT
I noticed gospel of Thomas was brought up. I know it's apocryphal since unaccepted as inspired by God. And I actually had trouble reading it. Was the worst veiw of Jesus in there so was creeped out and understand why it's not accepted. So how does orthodoxy view it when it contradicts structure though? Like as a literature book or divine from other "god"?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 28, 2019 18:26:18 GMT
I noticed gospel of Thomas was brought up. I know it's apocryphal since unaccepted as inspired by God. And I actually had trouble reading it. Was the worst veiw of Jesus in there so was creeped out and understand why it's not accepted. So how does orthodoxy view it when it contradicts structure though? Like as a literature book or divine from other "god"? I'm not sure that I know about orthodox views here, but I presume that there are some strange things in this book. Why Jesus being young created bread swans and made them to fly? And many other things seem strange there. In the other scriptures we see the whole picture as something similar, and we can't hesitate about serious intentions of the authors of Gospels, while Thomas's... I don't know. Not really fit to it. But, why exactly?.. Except the case of bread swans I don't know for sure about the others.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 28, 2019 18:27:11 GMT
Whoa... Unexpectedly... I need to say that my surface "analysis" of Thomas wasn't good. However, trying to stay punctual and responsible for my words I won't pass my previous thoughts about the book.
That's not a problem. We can just agree upon disagreeing.
What do you think about "The Shepherd of Hermas"?
|
|