Thank you to you for all of your content brother. It's been extremely helpful on my journey as my path and interests seem similar to yours in many ways. God bless ☦️❤
Just discovered Fr. Turbo Qualls some weeks ago and apart from having the world's coolest name, he truly speaks beautifully about the world lets goooow
My summary: Orthodoxy is not a spectator sport .Learn the word, learn the icons, keep the tension in the paradoxes (even the contrasts), navigate the world as just a person but a Real person, angels will guide the way. After years of listening to Pageau, and months of DPH and Fr. Qualls, I'm starting to get ears to hear. Humbled and inspired.
I deeply appreciate fr turbo qualls simply mentioning the working class man and just loving your neighbor and trying to live out the Word. You can tell he has a love for ‘regular’ working class people. ❤
Absolutely loved this conversation. Your podcasts with other Orthodox Christians, especially clergy are my favourites. Thank you to all three of you. God bless.
My absolute 3 fave thinkers on Earth coming together. I am estatic. This is Summerslam for me! I usually would binge right away but I'm gonna use this as a reward to motivate me today. Thanks To the 3 of you. This is actually my wishes being fufiled
The Akathist of Thanksgiving prayer service poetically brings to our minds the manifold beauty of creation in beautiful words of praise to the Creator. And to think that it was composed in a gulag work camp speaks to the beauty of the human spirit when lifted by the Holy Spirit. Creation is a Temple, the world is a sacrament, the earth is full of God’s glory
Jonathan’s point about the kings of the word bringing their glory into the new Jerusalem and Father Turbo pointing out the synthesis of art forms that created Greco Roman and the ongoing distilling of men’s art into the Church was beautifully said. So much depth to these men. God has purpose in His Church, the diversity of his Church’s many traditions orthodox, catholic and protestant. Start to see the “body” of Christ in the diversity yet harmony of its parts and influence on each other.
Diversity has to be in truth, not differing heresies merging together or alongside one another-the Church cannot embrace various heresies in the name of beauty and diversity as is implied by @josephcracium1282. The Church does not have various traditions of truth and doctrine or dogma.
Beauty is a synthesis of God‘s wisdom (Holy Spirit) it does not come from a singular man-made culture or tradition. True beauty is a universal that we can all connect to synthesize and feel. I feel this, not only in the divine liturgy, but in the symbols of God that emanate as beauty is His love and creation. God ultimately does not need symbols. Man created symbols not only to order, communicate, worship and understand, but to manipulate, deceive and enslave.
The point about Protestantism being bereft of Saints is so sad as one of the main candidates for veneration that I have ever come across is the Great Dietricht Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran and therefore denied veneration. What a hero and example that amazing man could be to all if he was lifted up in protestant culture instead of the elevation of the fictional Thomas Shelby, Dexter, Water White. Anti heros who teach you nothing other than how NOT to be
@@russbus1967 yes and thanks for pointing that out, one of my main reasons for making the comparison in the first place but I'd forgotten to put him in my comment
Protestants really cant have saints in their church culture because, for one thing, part of their faith is to minimize virtue and equalize all people. To have saints would be to deny some of their understanding of how God views mankind-everyone is equal because no one is good (a negative way to view their equality). Therefore, for Protestants to claim someone is a saint is to claim (against their beliefs) that people CAN be enabled by grace to rise above the state of complete depravity. That’s how it seems to me as an ex-protestant.
This reminded me of Mark 14 Where a women poured perfume over the head of Jesus and some were offended thinking it was a waste because the perfume could have been sold for a large sum and the money to be given to the poor but Jesus said that the poor will always be with you but He would not... It's the same thing in my opinion beauty bring us closer to God.
It’s very perplexing to me that he said “the lack of crucifying our own will” (not an exact quote) I was expecting to hear “sacrificing” our own will. The quote “love requires a sacrifice” helps me a lot in many instances but to think of it as a crucifiction instead of a sacrifice….. Am I missing something? Is that an orthodox view?
Jonathan, this is probably off topic for this video, but I wanted to send an idea that might interest you/Jordan. The tower of Babel is effectively a story about how a civilization, no matter how powerful and capable, will crumble when we lose the ability to communicate with one another. In the story, these people were building a tower to heaven, but this was done in a way that was ignorant of God, and thus God "confused their tongues". In our society, we have tried something similar - a secular total satisfaction via society and science, and now the social media that was supposed to make us more connected than ever, has made us more socially inept and in fact, more addicted than ever, to every drug out there (not the least of which is adult online content).
Are there any books someone could recommend that have full color images of Christian iconography? I'm Catholic and the Word on Fire bible series does include some beautiful images, but I'd like some supplementary work!
There are many Orthodox Christians: Father Moses Berry, Father Paul Abernathy, Father Chrysostom, Deacon John Gresham, Father Samuel Davis, Father Nathaniel Johnson (Saint Lawrence Church).. There is Mother Katherine Weston the superior of Saint Xenia Monestary. And of course, Father Turbo. And of course everywhere.
And, to add to the reply about black priests and monastics, one must include the many black priests in Africa.. And the famous and very-much loved SAINT MOSES THE BLACK, in one the early centuries, in Egypt. A formidable man who had been a slave, a robber, a murderer... and became a sweet, humble Abbot of a monastery. He actually was killed when his monastery was attacked. He had sent the others away, but stayed there himself and didn't resist his attackers.. Dear Saint Moses the Black.
Do you think it would be valuable to actually have a dialog with a Protestant minister or theologian? I feel like these conversations are in echo chambers, and assumptions are not directly addressed.
41:02 Judas Iscariot, one of Jesus' disciples, criticized Mary for what he saw as waste. He said the oil could have been sold and the money given to the poor. In direct response to this, Jesus said, “Leave her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you want, you can do good for them. But you will not always have me. She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for burial." (Mark 14:6-8, English Standard Version). Christ's compassionate response shows His understanding of Mary's actions as a sincere and loving devotion, and a preparation for His eventual death and burial. He also highlights the importance of devotion to Him, over material concerns.
I see a lot in common with Buddhism, especially the part of 'seeing Jesus/Christ' in another person, which is also refered to in Buddhism. Seeing a Buddha in everybody. And I think even the older Eastern religions it's the same, with Brahman. All different masks of the same. As is said, it is important to be aware not to identify with the forms, and even knowledge is a form in my opinion, or a religion as a whole. Just like the icons you refer to, I think the religions are vehicles towards what cannot be expressed. See you in Florida!
“Protestants don’t have Saints , so they elevate Beyoncé.” 🙄 Protestants acknowledge Christians as the Saints of God and because they don’t say prayers to saints & angels, they elevate CHRIST as the ‘one mediator between man & God’ as the scripture plainly states Jesus is.
I might be sympathetic with what you’re saying except that there’s plenty of bitterness and misery in society without putting it into pornography. People turn ti that because of bitterness.This doesn’t seem to address the issue of pornography at all really. It might be useful for making better art, but to say there is no balance of bitterness and sweetness in society is just ignorant. There is a lack of appreciation for bitterness, but you talk about it as if it weren’t there in everyone’s life already
Hey Jonathan, I know this has little to do with beauty and the topics of the video, but I need you or somebody on here to listen to what I have discovered, to determine if it is true or not. I've just made a horrible conclusion about God that I don't want to be true. As Thomas Aquinas said: "Good can exist without evil, whereas evil cannot exist without good." Good and evil are not equal opposites. Good can exist on its own without evil, but evil needs goodness to exist to be defined as evil. Evil is just the perverse counterpart of something good. For instance, rape is just a perverse and twisted form of consensual sex. Causing bodily harm is the perverse form of someone who brings healing. You can't have lies without the truth being able to exist. For example, saying "The sun doesn't exist." would have to imply the sun as a thing that exist for it to not exist. The sun being a reality is true. And without that truth of existence, lies cannot attach itself to anything to sustain itself. Death needs life to exist for death to occur. Something would have to live first in order to die. Whereas life doesn't have to die to be defined as life. Life can exist eternally with death never being a thing. Evil doesn't have anything to call souly it's own, and needs its counterpart, good, to be defined. So then, goodness came first, then the bad. As it stands, evil is just a parasite, latching on to goodness for the sake of its own existence. Goodness came first, and what is good can stand on its own without needing evil to be defined as good. Evil, on the other hand, needs good in order to exist. So, with all that being said, I've just come to a terrifying conclusion because of this. If evil indeed cannot exist on its own, and is just a perverse version of what is good, that means evil is an extension of the good. Albeit, a very twisted version of good that looks nothing like goodness, but if you follow wickedness down to its proper root, it has to be an extension of goodness. Because, by definition, it needs goodness to be defined as a thing. It has nothing of its own, which is why it twists and bends the good, perverting it to evil. So that begs the question: If evil has nothing to call truly its own, then what is it then? By necessity, it has to be an extension of the good. That's all it could ever be. A parasite that shares its essence with goodness. That would mean that evil is just an offshoot of goodness. If goodness was a tree, then evil would be one of its branches. It will be a very distorted branch, but it will nonetheless share the same essence with the tree. And since God is the very essence of goodness, that means that in God, there is also (moral) darkness and evil. If all that is good is contained in God, who is the very essence of goodness, then evil would have to derive from God. Just because of the very nature of who God, being the very definition of goodness, and by what the very definition of what evil is, then evil comes from the nature of God. And Satan would be His dark counterpart that twists and perverts God's essential goodness into that which is evil. I really don't want to believe this, but if I follow Augustin's assumptions of evil to its natural conclusion, this is what I come to. It's like if you have a long cord, and then that cord gets all tangled up and bent in every which way. The straight part of the cord is God and the tangled part of the cord is Satan; but its all the same cord nonetheless, because evil derives from good. This would basically mean that Satan is apart of God, that evil is apart of God. Sure, they look nothing alike, and they appear separate, but they can't be; both wickedness and goodness have to come from the same source, that being God. If God is goodness, that means, by extension, He is also evil. I still hold true that God's goodness came first and is independent from evil, and that evilness is parasite that defines itself from what is good. But still, this new revelation is troubling to say the least. I don't want to be right. I REALLY don't want to be right!! But...this is where my honest conclusions have gotten me. So, can anyone please prove me wrong? If you, or anyone, can tackle this issue in earnest, that will be much appreciated. Maybe it's true, maybe it's false, but the only way to really find out is if we talk about it and contemplate on it, and then we'll go from there.
Evil is not an extension of good. Evil is the absence of good. It is a lack, a defect, not a parasite. Evil is like blindness. A lack of sight is not a part of seeing, is its absence.
@silvinasi To refute my argument, you must first refute the argument of Thomas Aquinas. If you do that, then this whole argument of mine comes tumbling down. First, explain how "Good can exist without evil, whereas evil cannot exist without good." does not apply and is, in fact, wrong. "Good and evil are not equal opposites. Good can exist on its own without evil, but evil needs goodness to exist to be defined as evil. Evil is just the perverse counterpart of something good." This statement is either true or its false. You would need to explain how it isn't true, and how your argument is true instead. Dissect and explain.
@tdwyer919 But evil would have to exist, it has to BE something. Otherwise, for what is God judging us for? He will judge our deeds, both good and evil, and will repay accordingly. So then, evil isn't nothing. It has affect in reality. Even scripture claims as much; or at the very least, it heavily implies so. You're gonna have to go into detail and explain your position more if you're gonna claim stuff like that.
Thank goodness, my illiterate parents introduce me to the faith from birth, because if I had to discover it by listening to these kinds of conversations, I would philosophise myself into oblivion. Americans say so little for talking so much.
I’m sure these types of comments are annoying to Jonathan, but it sorta irks me how he views evvvvvvvvvery single thing in the Bible as symbolic or metaphorical, except (of course) the resurrection of Jesus. I can’t help but think of Sam Harris’ “Hawaiian cookbook” example. It’s basically where you can make something out of nothing and explain away silliness in the Bible as profound symbolism. But then when it comes to the crucial, foundational parts of the Bible like the resurrection that luxury of calling everything symbolic no longer applies.
I don't see the same tension between symbolism and reality that you're seeing. Symbolism is woven into the fabric of reality. We can't help but percieve the world through a narrative structure. Yes, much of Jonathan's work is centered around showing that the parts of the Bible regarded as "silly" are often very intentional and ultimately point back to the underlying narrative that ties all these stories together. The reality of Christs death and ressurection is not only miraculous in that it truly happened, but in the fact that the event ties all the seemingly disparate elements of scripture back to itself.
@@WallsClipswell that’s very picky and choosy. Are the other stories also true and miraculous or just symbolic? That once again makes think of the Hawaiian cookbook. Like the whale, the ark, a guy being formed out of a rib, talking donkey etc. I guess my point is why does only the resurrection get the luxury of being symbolic and also very practically/actually/historically true? Not trying to be a douchy atheist cause I’m actually not, but this way of thinking just feels too convenient
@@CSwift-vr1qgMythology, symbolism and history aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. History is based on historical records, empirical data and the hypotheses drawn from both. Historians, and intellectuals like Harris, are only concerned with meaning insofar as it furthers their agenda, or their individual need to appear “smart” or “right” about something to the public. Okay, maybe that’s going a bit too far, there might be some historians who just want to be sure about events that already happened in a distant past...but I just wonder, why? What would be the point to that? But I digress. Symbolism is only concerned with meaning. The only “proof” symbolism requires is that it is meaningful. If a symbol is meaningful, it is made real. Mythology is narrative that sometimes makes use of both, but doesn’t necessarily rely on history. By the way, history didn’t even really exist until people started recording it around 2500 years ago. Ponder that one.
@@CSwift-vr1qgWhat he's trying to say is that "Symbolism" as you understand it, is not the same way as we understand it. "Symbolism" as we understand it is a meaning/identity + Physical event/object. It's not merely a metaphor. Some videos that'll be helpful to get you to understand the Orthodox Perspective and what we mean would be: - "How Does "Symbolism" Compare to "Metaphor"? | Jonathan Pageau" - "What is Symbolism? - With Matthieu Pageau" - "The Inevitability of Ritual" (Jonathan Pageau) - "Jonathan Pageau encourages World Leaders to pursue the supreme Good" These videos in particular helped me get from your stage to becoming an Orthodox Catechumen. Hope this helps 🙏🏾☦️
Anybody think the guy on the bottom of the screen is trying too hard to sound intelligent? But all it's doing is making him sound like he's trying too hard to sound intelligent? Go ahead call me racist, but you know it's not that.
Thanks Jonathan for having Fr. Turbo and I on. We really appreciate it. 🙏
Fr. Turbo, who did you serve with in Iraq? Take care.
Thank you to you for all of your content brother. It's been extremely helpful on my journey as my path and interests seem similar to yours in many ways. God bless ☦️❤
@@naikhanomtom7552 Glory to God. I'm humbled if I have helped in any way.
Itv was such a treat!
Just discovered Fr. Turbo Qualls some weeks ago and apart from having the world's coolest name, he truly speaks beautifully about the world
lets goooow
I urge you to go to episode 1 of royal path and work your way through it. I'm on my second go thru it's THE BEST
nice I will take you up on that@@ZensRightEar
First thing I thought was "Father Turbo, what an awesome name"
My summary: Orthodoxy is not a spectator sport .Learn the word, learn the icons, keep the tension in the paradoxes (even the contrasts), navigate the world as just a person but a Real person, angels will guide the way. After years of listening to Pageau, and months of DPH and Fr. Qualls, I'm starting to get ears to hear. Humbled and inspired.
Everything is participatory.
Thank you Father Turbo, DPH and Jonathan. Pray for us, that we not simply be spectators or enjoyers, but enter into the hospital for souls.
‘The Sacraments lead us into reality’…the opening statement was one of the most theologically comprehensive statements I’ve heard.
God bless ☦️☦️☦️
3 of my worlds collide in the most glorious way
Thank you all 🙏🏼☦♥☦🙏🏼
Turbo may just be the MOST metal name I've ever heard.
LOL :)
It's the name of a saint he took for his baptismal name. IIRC, from the 2nd century.
@@PunchyOne Yeah, 2nd century. And he was also martyred together with Saint Neon!
@@Antrolf that's actually insane! Thanks for the info 🤯
@@PunchyOne Still metal az
@@Antrolf The name just keeps more and more metal, the more I hear
I deeply appreciate fr turbo qualls simply mentioning the working class man and just loving your neighbor and trying to live out the Word. You can tell he has a love for ‘regular’ working class people. ❤
Absolutely loved this conversation. Your podcasts with other Orthodox Christians, especially clergy are my favourites. Thank you to all three of you. God bless.
My absolute 3 fave thinkers on Earth coming together. I am estatic. This is Summerslam for me! I usually would binge right away but I'm gonna use this as a reward to motivate me today. Thanks To the 3 of you. This is actually my wishes being fufiled
The Akathist of Thanksgiving prayer service poetically brings to our minds the manifold beauty of creation in beautiful words of praise to the Creator. And to think that it was composed in a gulag work camp speaks to the beauty of the human spirit when lifted by the Holy Spirit. Creation is a Temple, the world is a sacrament, the earth is full of God’s glory
Thank you for this introduction to Fr. Turbo for me. What a lovely and insightful man.
Enlightening discussion, Bravo ! The icon proposes a fast to our senses…
Orthodoxy is the one and true church! Glory to God ❤
Excellent talk - very insightful. And the mentioning of the 'boom tube' was a pleasant surprise.
Um ... can this please be a monthly chat? So good.
1:04:37 this remark from Jonathan reminded me of a sermon by C. S. Lewis that really changed his i looked at everyone, called "The weight of Glory"
The wedding ring and the handshake are great examples. Thanks.
So good. Have to stop the video every few minutes to digest the things they are discussing.
Wonderful podcast! I learned a lot and I appreciated Fr Turbo’s exhortation to see beauty in the beggar…thank you and bless you!
Thank you gentlemen.
Amazing combo.
Jonathan’s point about the kings of the word bringing their glory into the new Jerusalem and Father Turbo pointing out the synthesis of art forms that created Greco Roman and the ongoing distilling of men’s art into the Church was beautifully said. So much depth to these men. God has purpose in His Church, the diversity of his Church’s many traditions orthodox, catholic and protestant. Start to see the “body” of Christ in the diversity yet harmony of its parts and influence on each other.
Diversity has to be in truth, not differing heresies merging together or alongside one another-the Church cannot embrace various heresies in the name of beauty and diversity as is implied by @josephcracium1282. The Church does not have various traditions of truth and doctrine or dogma.
Beauty is a synthesis of God‘s wisdom (Holy Spirit) it does not come from a singular man-made culture or tradition. True beauty is a universal that we can all connect to synthesize and feel. I feel this, not only in the divine liturgy, but in the symbols of God that emanate as beauty is His love and creation. God ultimately does not need symbols. Man created symbols not only to order, communicate, worship and understand, but to manipulate, deceive and enslave.
Thanks
the collab we have all been waiting for
i think madebyjimbob would be a great guest
Beautiful
Fr. Turbo. It's been too long since I've seen you and your family.
Great discussion
The message here is as poignant as the one Marcus and Jake has shared 💛 Thank you!
What a rich and beautiful age we live in. Thank you for this conversation, it's so helpful.
We got the three men in black together
Galaxy defenders. 😂
The point about Protestantism being bereft of Saints is so sad as one of the main candidates for veneration that I have ever come across is the Great Dietricht Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran and therefore denied veneration. What a hero and example that amazing man could be to all if he was lifted up in protestant culture instead of the elevation of the fictional Thomas Shelby, Dexter, Water White. Anti heros who teach you nothing other than how NOT to be
Are you familiar with St. Maximilian Kolbe (a Roman Catholic saint)? He has a similar story (he was also killed during the Holocaust)
@@russbus1967 yes and thanks for pointing that out, one of my main reasons for making the comparison in the first place but I'd forgotten to put him in my comment
Protestants really cant have saints in their church culture because, for one thing, part of their faith is to minimize virtue and equalize all people. To have saints would be to deny some of their understanding of how God views mankind-everyone is equal because no one is good (a negative way to view their equality). Therefore, for Protestants to claim someone is a saint is to claim (against their beliefs) that people CAN be enabled by grace to rise above the state of complete depravity. That’s how it seems to me as an ex-protestant.
Based stream. God bless
automatic thumbs up
This reminded me of Mark 14 Where a women poured perfume over the head of Jesus and some were offended thinking it was a waste because the perfume could have been sold for a large sum and the money to be given to the poor but Jesus said that the poor will always be with you but He would not... It's the same thing in my opinion beauty bring us closer to God.
Thank you
It’s very perplexing to me that he said “the lack of crucifying our own will” (not an exact quote) I was expecting to hear “sacrificing” our own will. The quote “love requires a sacrifice” helps me a lot in many instances but to think of it as a crucifiction instead of a sacrifice….. Am I missing something? Is that an orthodox view?
Encore!
Jonathan, this is probably off topic for this video, but I wanted to send an idea that might interest you/Jordan. The tower of Babel is effectively a story about how a civilization, no matter how powerful and capable, will crumble when we lose the ability to communicate with one another.
In the story, these people were building a tower to heaven, but this was done in a way that was ignorant of God, and thus God "confused their tongues". In our society, we have tried something similar - a secular total satisfaction via society and science, and now the social media that was supposed to make us more connected than ever, has made us more socially inept and in fact, more addicted than ever, to every drug out there (not the least of which is adult online content).
I can be a window to heaven for other people?! 🤯 Gosh that is true and scandalous. Wild.
Are there any books someone could recommend that have full color images of Christian iconography? I'm Catholic and the Word on Fire bible series does include some beautiful images, but I'd like some supplementary work!
The meaning of icons by Lossky
Aidan Hart’s “Festal Icons”
BALCK PRIEST YEEESSS YEEEEESSSSSS
Huh
Weirdo
There are many Orthodox Christians: Father Moses Berry, Father Paul Abernathy, Father Chrysostom, Deacon John Gresham, Father Samuel Davis, Father Nathaniel Johnson (Saint Lawrence Church).. There is Mother Katherine Weston the superior of Saint Xenia Monestary. And of course, Father Turbo. And of course everywhere.
And, to add to the reply about black priests and monastics, one must include the many black priests in Africa.. And the famous and very-much loved SAINT MOSES THE BLACK, in one the early centuries, in Egypt.
A formidable man who had been a slave, a robber, a murderer... and became a sweet, humble Abbot of a monastery. He actually was killed when his monastery was attacked. He had sent the others away, but stayed there himself and didn't resist his attackers..
Dear Saint Moses the Black.
If I don't get my fix of Jonathan Pageau videos there will be trouble 😁
Why Jonathan made a dragon like an icon disk in the symbolic cosmos world? Why not an eagle of St. John Theologian☦️🕊Thank you.
I have the same question.
The dragon symbolizes Satan.
Do you think it would be valuable to actually have a dialog with a Protestant minister or theologian? I feel like these conversations are in echo chambers, and assumptions are not directly addressed.
41:02
Judas Iscariot, one of Jesus' disciples, criticized Mary for what he saw as waste. He said the oil could have been sold and the money given to the poor.
In direct response to this, Jesus said, “Leave her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you want, you can do good for them. But you will not always have me. She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for burial." (Mark 14:6-8, English Standard Version).
Christ's compassionate response shows His understanding of Mary's actions as a sincere and loving devotion, and a preparation for His eventual death and burial. He also highlights the importance of devotion to Him, over material concerns.
lookin healthy
I see a lot in common with Buddhism, especially the part of 'seeing Jesus/Christ' in another person, which is also refered to in Buddhism. Seeing a Buddha in everybody. And I think even the older Eastern religions it's the same, with Brahman. All different masks of the same.
As is said, it is important to be aware not to identify with the forms, and even knowledge is a form in my opinion, or a religion as a whole. Just like the icons you refer to, I think the religions are vehicles towards what cannot be expressed. See you in Florida!
Yup
27:40 🙌
33:10 Profound
Icons: Community not Commodity!
It’s like when Green Acres had the Beverly Hillbillies cast visit across tv shows
No Way. More like when when Batman Spiderman and Superman unite
@@ZensRightEar yes much better
☦️
“Protestants don’t have Saints , so they elevate Beyoncé.” 🙄
Protestants acknowledge Christians as the Saints of God and because they don’t say prayers to saints & angels, they elevate CHRIST as the ‘one mediator between man & God’ as the scripture plainly states Jesus is.
I might be sympathetic with what you’re saying except that there’s plenty of bitterness and misery in society without putting it into pornography. People turn ti that because of bitterness.This doesn’t seem to address the issue of pornography at all really. It might be useful for making better art, but to say there is no balance of bitterness and sweetness in society is just ignorant. There is a lack of appreciation for bitterness, but you talk about it as if it weren’t there in everyone’s life already
Hey Jonathan, I know this has little to do with beauty and the topics of the video, but I need you or somebody on here to listen to what I have discovered, to determine if it is true or not.
I've just made a horrible conclusion about God that I don't want to be true.
As Thomas Aquinas said: "Good can exist without evil, whereas evil cannot exist without good."
Good and evil are not equal opposites. Good can exist on its own without evil, but evil needs goodness to exist to be defined as evil. Evil is just the perverse counterpart of something good.
For instance, rape is just a perverse and twisted form of consensual sex.
Causing bodily harm is the perverse form of someone who brings healing.
You can't have lies without the truth being able to exist. For example, saying "The sun doesn't exist." would have to imply the sun as a thing that exist for it to not exist. The sun being a reality is true. And without that truth of existence, lies cannot attach itself to anything to sustain itself.
Death needs life to exist for death to occur. Something would have to live first in order to die. Whereas life doesn't have to die to be defined as life. Life can exist eternally with death never being a thing.
Evil doesn't have anything to call souly it's own, and needs its counterpart, good, to be defined. So then, goodness came first, then the bad. As it stands, evil is just a parasite, latching on to goodness for the sake of its own existence. Goodness came first, and what is good can stand on its own without needing evil to be defined as good. Evil, on the other hand, needs good in order to exist.
So, with all that being said, I've just come to a terrifying conclusion because of this. If evil indeed cannot exist on its own, and is just a perverse version of what is good, that means evil is an extension of the good. Albeit, a very twisted version of good that looks nothing like goodness, but if you follow wickedness down to its proper root, it has to be an extension of goodness. Because, by definition, it needs goodness to be defined as a thing. It has nothing of its own, which is why it twists and bends the good, perverting it to evil. So that begs the question: If evil has nothing to call truly its own, then what is it then? By necessity, it has to be an extension of the good. That's all it could ever be. A parasite that shares its essence with goodness. That would mean that evil is just an offshoot of goodness. If goodness was a tree, then evil would be one of its branches. It will be a very distorted branch, but it will nonetheless share the same essence with the tree.
And since God is the very essence of goodness, that means that in God, there is also (moral) darkness and evil. If all that is good is contained in God, who is the very essence of goodness, then evil would have to derive from God. Just because of the very nature of who God, being the very definition of goodness, and by what the very definition of what evil is, then evil comes from the nature of God. And
Satan would be His dark counterpart that twists and perverts God's essential goodness into that which is evil.
I really don't want to believe this, but if I follow Augustin's assumptions of evil to its natural conclusion, this is what I come to. It's like if you have a long cord, and then that cord gets all tangled up and bent in every which way. The straight part of the cord is God and the tangled part of the cord is Satan; but its all the same cord nonetheless, because evil derives from good.
This would basically mean that Satan is apart of God, that evil is apart of God. Sure, they look nothing alike, and they appear separate, but they can't be; both wickedness and goodness have to come from the same source, that being God. If God is goodness, that means, by extension, He is also evil.
I still hold true that God's goodness came first and is independent from evil, and that evilness is parasite that defines itself from what is good. But still, this new revelation is troubling to say the least.
I don't want to be right. I REALLY don't want to be right!! But...this is where my honest conclusions have gotten me. So, can anyone please prove me wrong?
If you, or anyone, can tackle this issue in earnest, that will be much appreciated. Maybe it's true, maybe it's false, but the only way to really find out is if we talk about it and contemplate on it, and then we'll go from there.
Evil is not an extension of good. Evil is the absence of good. It is a lack, a defect, not a parasite. Evil is like blindness. A lack of sight is not a part of seeing, is its absence.
Evil exists only in the disposition of free choice. It has no ontological nature or existence, no essence.
@silvinasi To refute my argument, you must first refute the argument of Thomas Aquinas. If you do that, then this whole argument of mine comes tumbling down.
First, explain how "Good can exist without evil, whereas evil cannot exist without good." does not apply and is, in fact, wrong.
"Good and evil are not equal opposites. Good can exist on its own without evil, but evil needs goodness to exist to be defined as evil. Evil is just the perverse counterpart of something good."
This statement is either true or its false. You would need to explain how it isn't true, and how your argument is true instead. Dissect and explain.
@tdwyer919 But evil would have to exist, it has to BE something. Otherwise, for what is God judging us for? He will judge our deeds, both good and evil, and will repay accordingly. So then, evil isn't nothing. It has affect in reality. Even scripture claims as much; or at the very least, it heavily implies so.
You're gonna have to go into detail and explain your position more if you're gonna claim stuff like that.
@@childofgod5153 it is manifested through our choice of not following God's will. Choosing not to follow God.
Thank goodness, my illiterate parents introduce me to the faith from birth, because if I had to discover it by listening to these kinds of conversations, I would philosophise myself into oblivion. Americans say so little for talking so much.
I’m sure these types of comments are annoying to Jonathan, but it sorta irks me how he views evvvvvvvvvery single thing in the Bible as symbolic or metaphorical, except (of course) the resurrection of Jesus. I can’t help but think of Sam Harris’ “Hawaiian cookbook” example. It’s basically where you can make something out of nothing and explain away silliness in the Bible as profound symbolism. But then when it comes to the crucial, foundational parts of the Bible like the resurrection that luxury of calling everything symbolic no longer applies.
I don't see the same tension between symbolism and reality that you're seeing. Symbolism is woven into the fabric of reality. We can't help but percieve the world through a narrative structure. Yes, much of Jonathan's work is centered around showing that the parts of the Bible regarded as "silly" are often very intentional and ultimately point back to the underlying narrative that ties all these stories together. The reality of Christs death and ressurection is not only miraculous in that it truly happened, but in the fact that the event ties all the seemingly disparate elements of scripture back to itself.
@@WallsClipswell that’s very picky and choosy. Are the other stories also true and miraculous or just symbolic? That once again makes think of the Hawaiian cookbook. Like the whale, the ark, a guy being formed out of a rib, talking donkey etc. I guess my point is why does only the resurrection get the luxury of being symbolic and also very practically/actually/historically true? Not trying to be a douchy atheist cause I’m actually not, but this way of thinking just feels too convenient
@@CSwift-vr1qgMythology, symbolism and history aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.
History is based on historical records, empirical data and the hypotheses drawn from both. Historians, and intellectuals like Harris, are only concerned with meaning insofar as it furthers their agenda, or their individual need to appear “smart” or “right” about something to the public. Okay, maybe that’s going a bit too far, there might be some historians who just want to be sure about events that already happened in a distant past...but I just wonder, why? What would be the point to that? But I digress.
Symbolism is only concerned with meaning. The only “proof” symbolism requires is that it is meaningful. If a symbol is meaningful, it is made real.
Mythology is narrative that sometimes makes use of both, but doesn’t necessarily rely on history.
By the way, history didn’t even really exist until people started recording it around 2500 years ago. Ponder that one.
@@epsteenwusmerdered9878I don’t mean to sound mean man but you just said a bunch of nonsense. Unless this is satire
@@CSwift-vr1qgWhat he's trying to say is that "Symbolism" as you understand it, is not the same way as we understand it.
"Symbolism" as we understand it is a meaning/identity + Physical event/object. It's not merely a metaphor.
Some videos that'll be helpful to get you to understand the Orthodox Perspective and what we mean would be:
- "How Does "Symbolism" Compare to "Metaphor"? | Jonathan Pageau"
- "What is Symbolism? - With Matthieu Pageau"
- "The Inevitability of Ritual" (Jonathan Pageau)
- "Jonathan Pageau encourages World Leaders to pursue the supreme Good"
These videos in particular helped me get from your stage to becoming an Orthodox Catechumen.
Hope this helps 🙏🏾☦️
And I saw the Son of man, returning in the clouds, wearing Air Jordans, instead of sandals.
stop entertaining the people......john.....and start using the oldest bible.....the ethiopian bible
Anybody think the guy on the bottom of the screen is trying too hard to sound intelligent? But all it's doing is making him sound like he's trying too hard to sound intelligent? Go ahead call me racist, but you know it's not that.