Mrs. Maggott
Home is where the cat is
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2002
- Messages
- 3,463
Lotho_Pimple said:
Yes, I believe that it is the inspired Word of God. However, Orthodox Christians do not translate Scripture literally - that is, that the "seven days" of creation are seven 24 hour days such as we experience here on earth. We believe that though there is much of Scripture that is in fact historically accurate (and that seems to be constantly reinforced by various archeological "digs" over the years), still much of it is in the form of parable such as Jesus Himself used when He taught. But whether Adam and Eve were actual human beings created to exist in a special relationship with God and then partook of the "forbidden fruit", thus marring (not ending) that relationship, is open to debate. However, the Church does understand that story to mean that at some time in our history as a species, we had the opportunity to have a special relationship with God and through disobedience, that relationship was, as I said, marred and broken if not ended. It did, however, require the incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity - Jesus Christ - and His redemptive life, death and resurrection to re-establish that relationship and even then it was re-established within the context of a fallen world. Parenthetically, it appears that science has followed our human heritage back to ONE woman (see Time Magazine cover story several years ago) whom the researchers named (you guessed it!) Eve!
In any event, Orthodoxy does not believe in a literal word-for-word understanding of Scripture, especially given that in the West, the translations used were not the best, especially of the Old Testament. I hope this answers your question.
Lotho_Pimple said:
Come, my friend! When you have supposedly "Christian" churches who deny the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, the resurrection and all the rest of the fundamental doctrines which actually mean "Christianity" and embrace abortion, euthanasia, sexual license and other "modernisms" - all of which were and are condemned by the Church - I think that the state of present day "theology" speaks for itself! Indeed, I have much more respect for neo-pagans who make no claim to speak for "the Church" than I have for those who wrap themselves in Her outer appearance (smells and bells) like wolves in sheep's clothing in order to deceive those who are looking for the Faith. At least New Age syncretists and neo-pagans are honest enough to present themselves for what they are: NOT the Church!
Lotho_Pimple said:
It is a statement of doctrine, but it would take too long to explain it all here. I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian (most people recognize the Church by its ethnic jurisdictional labels: Greek, Russian, Romanian, Albanian, American (yes, American) etc. But it is the early Church virtually unchanged since the first half of the first millenium. Doctrinally, the Orthodox Church stands with the Nicene Creed (4th Century) and has not changed Her doctrines since the Council of Nicea articulated our expression of faith. Of course, there have been other Councils (validated by the passage of time) and canons which have addressed various problems and situations which have arisen in the Church over the years (like the great iconoclast heresy), but that statement of faith remains unchanged. The Church makes nothing "doctrine" that is not in Scripture (hence it permits a belief in the assumption of the Virgin, but does not formalize the doctrine since it is not in Scripture). As I mentioned, we do not believe in the doctrine of "original sin", but rather in a "fallen nature" which gives mankind a predeliction towards evil.
Oh, and by the way, it is the Church which chose those books which are called "The Bible" today among many books which might have been incorporated. Those left out are called "Apocryphal" and often they are used in research, but The Bible as it appears in Christian churches today was "created" by The Church - and not vice versa. That is why Holy Tradition and the interpretation of Scripture by the Fathers of the Church carry the weight which they do in Orthodox doctrine, canons and liturgics.
Interestingly enough, when a group of very learned Protestants led by Peter Gilquist tried to determine if in fact the "early Christian Church" still existed, they engaged in several years of intense study including Church history, doctrine, liturgics and morals. After that time, they determined that the ONLY Church currently existing which continued in the ways of the early Church was in fact, the Orthodox Church - and they sought admission as a group to the Church. Metropolitan Philip of the Antiochean Orthodox Church in the United States welcomed them and presently they are under his jurisdiction with their numbers growing exponentially.
Now does this mean that the present day Orthodox Church in America or anywhere else is perfect? Hel.... er, heck no! In fact, Fr. Alexander Schmemann of blessed memory once lamented that the Orthodox Church was the right Church filled with the wrong people! A perfect example of this is the story told to me by an elderly Russian priest that the great C. S. Lewis in his journey to Christianity - after much study in the same way as Mr. Gilquist and company - wished to become Orthodox and approached an elderly Russian bishop in England to be received into the Church. The old bishop looked at him with wonder and said (imagine Russian accent here), "But my son, WHY do you want to be Orthodox? You are not Russian!" And so, Lewis became Anglican! But still, his works are used by the Orthodox Church to clarify and explain basic tenets of Christianity which still bind "Traditional" Churches whatever their so-called "denominations".
Lotho_Pimple said:
A hammer can drive a nail or split a skull; it is in the hands of the user as to what use it will be put. Church doctrine like anything else can be misused and HAS been over the centuries. As for "unnecessary fear and guilt", yes, that can happen (see Lewis' "A Pilgrim's Regress wherein he talks about an unhealthy and unproductive "fear" of God). However, in this day and age we are far more likely to see an absence of both fear and guilt. I happened on a "tribute" to Hugh Hefner the other night in which "recreational sex" was lauded to the skies! Frankly, there is no such thing! Sex is serious business and almost always has consequences whether emotional - depression, suicide, inability to form relationships - or physical - pregnancy or STDs including AIDS. Sometimes a little fear and guilt can be a whole lot less crippling than the consequences of their absence.
Lotho_Pimple said:
Yes. I find the concept of a "fallen nature" far more understandable and compassionate than simply stamping "sinner" on the head of every individual coming into the world. It explains why it is far easier to acquire and maintain BAD habits than good ones. It also permits an individual to accept blame for wrongdoing without crushing him (since no one is perfect) and also accept help in "getting back up and trying again" since every victory is a true victory and not just something we are "expected" to accomplish because we are born able to do it. It is rather like Christ's warning to the man that upon entering a feast he should take a lower seat at table rather than a higher one. It is infinitely more pleasant to be asked to move up than to be told we have to move down. If we see ourselves as sinners, then we can take heart knowing with every fall we can arise and that with every victory over our fallen nature - no matter how small - we progress daily towards God.
Lotho_Pimple said:
Yes. Of all Tolkien's mythology, his rather unique understanding of the mortality of man (and other beings) is virtually diametric to his faith. However, I seem to recall reading that it was a response to his making the Elves immortal and it came about during the writing of The Silmarillion (really, the FIRST book he compiled) which, as you know, is written from the point of view of the Valar and the Elves, not Men. He could hardly burden Men with death as punishment for that would have made Iluvatar and the Valar infinitely cruel since Men were virtually ignored while the Valar spent all their time on the Firstborn. So since death "had to be", Tolkien had to find some more acceptable explanation for its presence. The opportunity to leave the confines of the world (which would become infinitely wearying in time) and to have a place in the "Second Music" I guess filled the bill.
Lotho_Pimple said:
Who knows? Without the films, there may be hope!