Well as started out as Greek Orthodox, while here in America and never really thought about it. But, after I got to Israel I saw- ALL the Orthodox 'religious'' sites (Very Religious) I soon Learned just How Superstitious that Whole denomination Really is- andALL the False doctrines (Minus The Pope!) Reading Greek is one thing but The Hebrew and especially Hebraic Pictographs is Where Scriptural accuracy comes from!! BO Yeshua!
@@bartholomewnathaniel807 a good friend of mine came to Antiochian Orthodoxy and then became an Orthodox Jew. I don’t see it as superstition but reverence.
The way you describe contemporary ethics actually sounds quite attractive. The world should reinvent itself when something does not work. That’s call RATIONALITY. Please don’t pose a false dichotomy between religion and society that makes the argument that religion is static. That’s ignorant and absurd.
I wouldn’t say contemporary ethics because that would ascribe a good thing to it. The problem with secularism is that it breaks the human being down to a series of functions and parts and claims that one needs to be constantly retrofitted to keep up with some kind of changing time. It ignores the wholeness of a person and their humanity. If you come to study orthodoxy or spend enough time, maybe debating people like Mr. Jay Dyer you will eventually come to the conclusion that I have. Thanks for commenting.
@ look dude I’ve been in the thick of it since dyer was in short pants and don’t need to be schooled by shallow poseurs like him. You just pose a false dichotomy. Secularism is one result of the Protestant Reformation, it’s just our noetic reality and is t going away if enough people become orthodox or something. All human society has always been dynamic. The periods when it isn’t are called decadent or dark ages. We live in a highly dynastic society that has problems of wealth distribution and early onset oligarchy and you complain about something which doesn’t exist. The Church exists in society and is likewise dynamic in its response to changing material conditions and development/decadence of the noösphere. The Orthodox churches still haven’t come up with an adequate response to the downfall of empire.
@@claesvanoldenphatt9972 Your claim of experience is as unconvincing as it is irrelevant; longevity in error doesn't equate to wisdom. Firstly, to dismiss Jay Dyer as a 'shallow poseur' without engaging with his arguments reveals more about your own superficiality than about his scholarship. Regarding your assertion that secularism is merely an outcome of the Protestant Reformation, you ignore significant historical nuance. Secularism's roots can be traced through multiple historical threads, including the Enlightenment, which was influenced by but not solely derived from Protestantism. To say it's our 'noetic reality' is to surrender to fatalism rather than engage in critical analysis. Your dismissal of the potential impact of religious revival on secularism is overly simplistic. History shows that religious movements can and have shifted cultural landscapes dramatically. You confuse the dynamic nature of society with an inexorable march towards secularism, ignoring how religious institutions have historically shaped or even driven social change. Moreover, your caricature of the Orthodox Church’s response to modernity is lazy. The Orthodox response to the fall of empires has been complex, involving theological reflection, cultural adaptation, and even political engagement, in places like Russia and Greece. Suggesting they haven't come up with an 'adequate response' only highlights your ignorance of their modern theological developments and the ongoing discussions about faith and secularism within Orthodoxy. Lastly, your critique of societal dynamics seems to equate change with progress, ignoring how 'dynastic' societies, as you put it, can indeed lead to decadence or dark ages by entrenching power and wealth without moral or ethical reformation. The very issues you mention-wealth distribution and oligarchy-might benefit from the moral frameworks religions, including Orthodoxy, can offer, rather than dismissing them as relics. In essence, your argument lacks depth and fails to appreciate the multifaceted interactions between religion, society, and political structures. Perhaps instead of dismissing others as 'poseurs,' reflect on how your own perspective might be the one lacking substance.
@@badgersnakeproductions I didn’t catch the damned otokorekt when it changed ‘dynamic’ in one instance to ‘dynastic’. We don’t have dynasties, we have democratic elections.
Well as started out as Greek Orthodox, while here in America and never really thought about it. But, after I got to Israel I saw- ALL the Orthodox 'religious'' sites (Very Religious) I soon Learned just How Superstitious that Whole denomination Really is- andALL the False doctrines (Minus The Pope!) Reading Greek is one thing but The Hebrew and especially Hebraic Pictographs is Where Scriptural accuracy comes from!! BO Yeshua!
@@bartholomewnathaniel807 a good friend of mine came to Antiochian Orthodoxy and then became an Orthodox Jew. I don’t see it as superstition but reverence.
The way you describe contemporary ethics actually sounds quite attractive. The world should reinvent itself when something does not work. That’s call RATIONALITY. Please don’t pose a false dichotomy between religion and society that makes the argument that religion is static. That’s ignorant and absurd.
I wouldn’t say contemporary ethics because that would ascribe a good thing to it. The problem with secularism is that it breaks the human being down to a series of functions and parts and claims that one needs to be constantly retrofitted to keep up with some kind of changing time. It ignores the wholeness of a person and their humanity. If you come to study orthodoxy or spend enough time, maybe debating people like Mr. Jay Dyer you will eventually come to the conclusion that I have. Thanks for commenting.
@ look dude I’ve been in the thick of it since dyer was in short pants and don’t need to be schooled by shallow poseurs like him. You just pose a false dichotomy. Secularism is one result of the Protestant Reformation, it’s just our noetic reality and is t going away if enough people become orthodox or something. All human society has always been dynamic. The periods when it isn’t are called decadent or dark ages. We live in a highly dynastic society that has problems of wealth distribution and early onset oligarchy and you complain about something which doesn’t exist. The Church exists in society and is likewise dynamic in its response to changing material conditions and development/decadence of the noösphere. The Orthodox churches still haven’t come up with an adequate response to the downfall of empire.
@@claesvanoldenphatt9972 Your claim of experience is as unconvincing as it is irrelevant; longevity in error doesn't equate to wisdom. Firstly, to dismiss Jay Dyer as a 'shallow poseur' without engaging with his arguments reveals more about your own superficiality than about his scholarship.
Regarding your assertion that secularism is merely an outcome of the Protestant Reformation, you ignore significant historical nuance. Secularism's roots can be traced through multiple historical threads, including the Enlightenment, which was influenced by but not solely derived from Protestantism. To say it's our 'noetic reality' is to surrender to fatalism rather than engage in critical analysis.
Your dismissal of the potential impact of religious revival on secularism is overly simplistic. History shows that religious movements can and have shifted cultural landscapes dramatically. You confuse the dynamic nature of society with an inexorable march towards secularism, ignoring how religious institutions have historically shaped or even driven social change.
Moreover, your caricature of the Orthodox Church’s response to modernity is lazy. The Orthodox response to the fall of empires has been complex, involving theological reflection, cultural adaptation, and even political engagement, in places like Russia and Greece. Suggesting they haven't come up with an 'adequate response' only highlights your ignorance of their modern theological developments and the ongoing discussions about faith and secularism within Orthodoxy.
Lastly, your critique of societal dynamics seems to equate change with progress, ignoring how 'dynastic' societies, as you put it, can indeed lead to decadence or dark ages by entrenching power and wealth without moral or ethical reformation. The very issues you mention-wealth distribution and oligarchy-might benefit from the moral frameworks religions, including Orthodoxy, can offer, rather than dismissing them as relics.
In essence, your argument lacks depth and fails to appreciate the multifaceted interactions between religion, society, and political structures. Perhaps instead of dismissing others as 'poseurs,' reflect on how your own perspective might be the one lacking substance.
@@badgersnakeproductions I didn’t catch the damned otokorekt when it changed ‘dynamic’ in one instance to ‘dynastic’. We don’t have dynasties, we have democratic elections.
@@claesvanoldenphatt9972 LOL Go debate Jay I'm sure it would be fun. He has open debates all the time.