ThomasdelVasto
Κύριε, ποίησόν με ὄργανον τῆς ἀγάπης σου
Blogger, Christian convert, general strange one. https://shapesinthefog.substack.com/
User ID: 3709
Not to mention that YHWH clearly changes character over time. YHWH in a lot of Genesis is an insecure and jealous dick, but by the New Testament, and perhaps even before, he's become a much more mature and wise figure. I like Jung's explanation of this (if we are built in the image of God, it makes sense for God to also have integrate his own shadow, which he does by incarnating and being killed as Jesus). But of course this violates the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent axioms, so it's heresy in pretty much any church.
Jung goes a lot farther than that, arguing Satan needs to be raised to the Trinity in order for the Church to fully embrace the shadow. I liked Jung but idk reading more of his theology makes me realize he uhh well let's just say I disagree strongly. Also finding out about his personal ethics was a bit of a shock.
I see a lot wrong with nearly every church so I can’t disagree here. But that doesn’t mean that we should throw out all the developments of Western religion.
I'm curious for your critiques on Orthodoxy? The way you approach theology seems somewhat similar to other Orthodox folks I've read, though you're a bit more consequentialist/game theory focused I must admit.
How else are they going to learn, if they're shut away in a separate room while services are going on? Mind you, three hours is a lot longer than Catholicism's "an hour tops and if you get a fast priest it's only half an hour". Is there the Orthodox equivalent of "eh, as long as you make it in the door before the Gospel, you're fine"?
A lot of large Orthodox parishes will have children's Liturgies, where the assistant priest will do a liturgy specifically for children and maybe parents/caregivers, in which he explains more of what's going on and helps the kids get more into the service. I think it's a wonderful idea though I've never seen one.
That's probably a tiny minority of very academically-minded converts. As a recent convert in the US in a parish full of recent converts and catechumens and I can tell you that for most of us, the draw was something that is at once utterly at the core of our civilization but at the same time outside of the mainstream enough to not be corrupted by the various forces that pushed us into the Church from wherever we were before.
Not a tiny minority at my church, I'd say it's over half the converts that get convinced at least partially by the historical differences of the two churches. Just an anecdote.
the Latin Catholic Church has itself become a part of the profane decadent mainstream which it is supposed to be a bulwark against (I recently attended a Catholic Mass which had stadium seating -- with the altar on a stage below the people -- and PowerPoint-style projections of song lyrics and pictures related to the service. Hard to imagine something less otherworldly than that experience). And there are also the sex scandals.
Also yeah, my first experience of mass was in a gym. Suffice to say I was much more impressed with the Divine Liturgy.
What I find most interesting about the current Israel - Iran conflict isn't necessarily a lot of the geopolitical implications / consequences (although of course they are important), but instead the way the war is being waged. It seems, so far as I can tell, that they are almost entirely "trading missile strikes" and that no boots are on the ground, there isn't even really much of a naval component. Just missile centers in cities or in the desert shooting at one another, causing damage that, from a citizen's POV, is essentially random.
I know that the World Wars were considered horrible because death in combat felt so random due to bombings, machine guns, etc. Are we now entering a new stage of warfare where soldiers are barely even involved, and we just shoot missiles at each others population centers, trying to decapitate the enemy leadership?
On the one hand, it's certainly... cleaner, I suppose? Much better than the horrid conditions of trench warfare during the World Wars, at least based on what I've read about it. Still though, it feels extremely cold and random, disconnected from the perspective of the average person.
Then again, the whole war in the Ukraine is very much boots on the ground, even if drones are heavily involved. I'm not sure (obviously) exactly how the future of war will develop, but we are certainly seeing interesting new innovations as of late. And we have barely even scratched the surface of using AI in warfare!
What are your best predictions for how future warfare will develop?
Where do you draw your meaning from?
I think what holds back Orthodoxy spreading in the West is the ethnic churches. You have the church for the Greeks, the church for the Bulgarians, the church for the Russians, and so on. It's bound up with particular cultures as much as faith and that makes it harder for a Western guy to walk in and understand what's going on.
There is the Orthodox Church of America, which is becoming more and more prominent and is specifically focused on erasing these boundaries.
That being said, I actually love the Greek. Not sure I would've converted without how beautiful the Greek language is, Greek culture, etc. While it can be offputting at first, eventually you come to realize that it's beautiful that this culture has actually survived the acid bath of American globohomo. Personally I think it's one of the big divisive issues I see though, and I hear about it a lot from other converts. Heck, I used to complain about this myself!
the Mass is the Mass is the Mass, while it might now be in the vernacular there's nothing stopping you from going to a Spanish parish if that's your first experience and seeing that what goes on is the same as the Vietnamese church is the same as the Irish or the Germans or the Italians.
Well, the problem with that is that the Mass in Latin destroys all the local culture. Big issue with Catholicism from my perspective, especially if you look at the historic violence and awfulness that the Church perpetrated. The Orthodox aren't perfect of course, but wow the Catholic church has done some bad stuff.
You can probably get away with "Jonah was not literally in the belly of a fish" but no dice on "Jesus was not literally born of a virgin".
I agree with that, though I'd argue Jonah was definitely in the belly of a fish.
What is Islamic about it? I don't know a lot about it.
Ahh I see, interesting. Well idk don't want to tell you how to do your marriage lol. I suppose he can talk to his priest!
It's interesting though because usually the severity appeals more to men hehe. I get it though. My own partner and I are very much non traditional in many ways as well.
Perhaps if he looked into the symbolism and understood more of the details of the Liturgy that could help? That is what helped me get a lot more into it. Also I joined choir and that has been amazing.
Eh modern Christianity whitewashes a lot of it, Orthodoxy generally doesn't. We keep all the weird stuff and believe the other gods exist they just may or may not be evil, etc.
I tend to agree that the modern presentation of most Christianity is watered down as heck and papers over a lot. I like to embrace the weirdness and contradiction - I think any true mystical / religious scheme must embrace paradox.
Yeah this is a pretty pedestrian view, lol. You could take this line of reasoning with literally any complex argument ever. Just because something isn't simple and immediately obvious doesn't make it wrong.
If you read the arguments for the Trinity from the early Church Fathers, they are incredibly well thought out and use lots of argumentation. That being said, I'm not a theologian so I am not bothered much. I'm fine to let it be a Holy Mystery.
I have to strongly disagree. I don't want to get into all of the specifics, but this type of blackpilling comes from a nihilistic, materialist framework. Yes if you see the world as nothing but a meaningless collection of atoms bouncing around, many will get to this viewpoint inevitably, it seems.
That being said - you don't have to view the world that way! We have free will, we are able to interrogate our axioms and try to understand things at a deeper level. If your worldview is so bleak, it may be because some of the things you believe are not fully true. I would encourage you to look deeper.
Can you really blame them, Christianity as an institution has been speedrunning blasphemies upon blasphemies with a straight face for centuries, from the absorption of the Trinitanism cult nonsense (god being three beings yet one), the constant Idolatry (Icons, Crosses, holy trinkets, holly sites) the base and mundane nonsense (The Pope says trans rights). It's all so tiresome.
Yeah, this is why I have gone straight for Orthodoxy. Although Icons are definitely not heretical, they were used in the early church, you can look it up blah blah.
Wait the Trinity is a cult? Huh. You mind unpacking your beliefs more I'm curious what you think the true Gospel is?
I don't want to be a Redditor about it, but I don't see the point of modern Christianity. Coming from a largely apatheistic perspective, it's trivially obvious that the actual importance with which people generally and Christians especially treat religion is at an all-time low.
Have you heard of the book Dominion? It basically makes the argument that almost all of our modern moral worldview is a direct result of Christian teachings changing the moral landscape from pagan religions. Might interest you if you're genuinely curious here.
If we return to Deus Vult and the sword, will that satisfy you in some way? When Christians were serving in significant numbers in the recent middle east wars, and often saw those wars as a crusade, did that lend the faith more credibility?
Yeah if anything I think Christianity was farther from Christ's actual teachings at that point, than we are today. Turning the other cheek does not translate to massive, bloody crusades, up to and including sacking cities of other Christians and killing so many the streets run red with blood. (Yes, I'm still mad about the sack of Constantinople.)
I'm new to the Orthodoxy stuff (there are at least three of us on here???)
Me, you, @Gaashk, @ortherox (sp?) and I think @TheDag (?) are Orthodox. Probably more if I had to guess.
The notion of symbolic over and against literal is a very anachronistic way of reading the symbols that are being described and referenced in Scripture and the writings of the saints and church fathers. Similar to the false dichotomy of spiritual vs physical.
Is this true? I've heard over and over that the allegorical/symbolic reading of the Scriptures is something the Church Fathers did. We even have the words allegorical and symbolic in many Orthodox chants. Perhaps symbolic over and against literal I agree with - the literal and the symbolic were seen as one. Symbol literally means "where heaven and earth meet."
And hey I'm working on converting the techies on twitter. Come help out!!
But Americans aren't like that, and ultimately my husband and I are American, and feel miserable coming and going from the church service to the children's room and back as necessary.
Huh, most folks in my church will just have their kids in the Liturgy with them, and if the kid is screaming no big deal. Our bishop came in one time and literally admonished people if they thought to judge the children who were crying during a service, strongly saying that kids are closer to God than we are.
It's interesting, Orthodoxy is so different based on where you go and who you talk to. From @urquan's post above sounds like he and you have both had some more ascetic/intense parishes. I'm grateful to have not found that! Hah. But we do still have the grace and beauty, and I am incredibly lucky in that way.
In terms of feasting, and kids going in and out of the liturgy running around, that does sound lovely. I do wish it was even more relaxed here in America, maybe one day.
I strongly believe the “gung ho liturgy go hard fasting is hard everyone must follow rules originally followed by monks” energy of Orthodoxy, which attracts the competitive male converts to it, is also the greatest problem for the Orthodox Church. The “standard” practice is incredibly high — and in service of an incredibly high goal, total union with God. Literally to “have everything that God has.”
This REALLY depends on your parish my friend. I've read a lot of the Orthodox Church Fathers and yeah, the asceticism can be pretty harsh.
That being said, my own parish is very chill and the priest has basically told me that if it isn't good for my soul, don't worry about it. Hell, he even told me that my girlfriend and I living together was ok as long as it was good for the relationship, since we were dating before I converted.
Overall my experience has absolutely NOT been of a super militant, super strict fasting, hardcore church. I would strongly urge you to check out different parishes, or hang out with different groups.
Also, online Orthodoxy is horrible and I wouldn't go near it tbh. I have found very few public, online Orthodox folks that I think are actually humble. And humility is the chief virtue, without her we have nothing.
In reality though, they should "just go be Orthodox." ;P
but I'll bet even the average Catholic priest doesn't really, truly believe in angels and demons and would freak out as much as any secular person if he experienced something actually supernatural.
You're probably not wrong, sadly! I don't have a ton of experience with the Catholic church so I can't say one way or another, but I wouldn't be surprised if you were correct here. 100% with Protestants, I don't think most of them genuinely believe at all.
I will say though, it is different with Orthodox clergy! Again, insofar as my own experience is a guide. The Orthodox clergy I have talked to genuinely believe, discuss supernatural phenomena happening to them and other congregants, and are incredibly committed to the preternatural as a part of their worldview. Now, this doesn't mean all the laity deeply believe and that's a separate problem, but I have noticed a big difference.
I remain a materialist atheist and it's very unlikely anything will convince me to change. @FCfromSSC writes some very cogent criticisms of materialism and I get his point that materialists often base their "knowledge" on constructs no more inherently trustworthy than faith, but that just tells me no one can really "know" anything. Maybe for some people that leaves belief wide open as a choose-your-own-adventure, but I find myself unable to just make myself believe things. "You don't have an answer for how the universe started, therefore Jesus" is such a huge leap that I don't understand how people get there, though clearly many do.
Hmmm, I'm not sure you are fully grasping the point @FCfromSSC is making. I may be butchering it, but the basic idea is an invitation to interrogate your own axioms. You may say nobody can really "know" anything, but regardless, to live and function in the world you do have to "know" things and have some axioms. Perhaps this idea that nobody can "know" anything is an axiom itself. Once you start to dig deeper into the structures of your beliefs, you find that a lot of them are built on houses of cards.
As for the leap - it's not as ridiculous as it may seem. It does take some reading and some genuine motivation and learning, but I'd recommend some books on Biblical symbolism like The Language of Creation, or Peterson's Holy are We Who Wrestle. If you want a deeper, historiographical lens, check out Violence Unveiled - Humanity at the Crossroads.
No argument will convince me to just "reason" my way into accepting Jesus or Mohammad PBUH or the Tao. (Don't try; you do not have an argument I have not heard before.) The only thing that would trigger a conversion in me is witnessing something with my own eyes. Show me an angel, so to speak.
These beings don't necessarily appear to us everyday, especially if we don't try to reach out to them. Our minds can be quite closed. Have you tried fasting, or camping alone in the wilderness for 3+ days? Or, alternatively and frankly much riskier, you could try psychedelics and pray to an angel and ask for a sign. He who seeks shall find, and to he who knocks, it shall be opened.
Does being "religious" actually change anyone's beliefs or behavior? Not really. I've long been of the opinion that being religious has almost no impact on an individual's character and says little about him
My conversion dramatically changed my own actions and character, in concrete ways. I have seen and heard many other stories of this being true. I do agree in general though that too often Christianity is worn as a sort of facade of piety while doing whatever you want. Christ had that in his own day, and I'm sure we will always have religious hypocrites amongst us. I am hypocritical in my own ways. That doesn't mean that He isn't alive, and active in the world.
They don't believe Christ actually rose from the dead, and can't accept that it's possible. That's pretty straightforward, no?
I’m trying to observe the 4 big ones. I don’t do every Wednesday and Friday fast, my parish isn’t very strict about it. I try to abstain from meat mostly but again it’s more the Spirit.
Would be extremely foolish. The mods can look at deleted comments, and all this does is raise suspicion, lol.
Just curious! Not trying to do a gotcha. I'm impressed you've tried all of that my man. Sad to hear that you didn't have the same experience I had. Not out of like, contemptuous pity or anything but I genuinely do find my life is way better. I wish more folks were able to find more meaning in their lives.
Not that you necessarily did anything wrong. Not sure what to tell you, I'm not an expert on these matters.
Hmm I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "character" here. My conversion did help me overcome some drug and alcohol issues, so perhaps that had something to do with it!
But when it comes to "drugs or lack of religion," and if the religion is the only way to overcome the pull of drugs, how does that invalidate the power of religion?
More options
Context Copy link