Post Ar5gzUGTs8IHdBb4jY by neofugue@annihilation.social
(DIR) More posts by neofugue@annihilation.social
(DIR) Post #Apeq8d67WBUGyMT5ay by neofugue@annihilation.social
2025-01-02T02:32:33.256954Z
3 likes, 4 repeats
Happy New Year to all frens on Gab and Fedi!!!I hope everyone is enjoying a nice New Year’s dinner with friends and family.For New Year’s Day, I would like to introduce Russian Orthodox priest Father Oleg Stenyev.Archpriest Oleg Stenyev is one of many great Russian priests whose writings and speeches are not all translated into English. One may find many of his articles on some of the official sites such as OrthoChristian, but most of his best work is hidden to Western audiences.One of my contacts is the spiritual son of a priest who translated one of Oleg Stenyev’s lectures into English. His speech was on the family, of the families of Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, and Ruth the Moabite. The Invidious YT link to the full discussion is linked as follows:https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=Bh0zLCyur9MAs there is no official translation of Father Stenyev’s lecture, copying and pasting my friend’s priest’s translation carries an opsec risk. Here are some insightful quotations from the translation, slightly altered for opsec purposes:On heretics/sectarians/unbelievers:“The devil deliberately distorts the words of God; he wants to draw our ancestor Eve into some kind of useless discussion. Did God say, 'Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?' The same goes for [heretics] who ask Orthodox Christians provocative questions, not to hear the right answer but to confuse us, to throw us out of spiritual balance and draw us into useless discussion. [For example, sectarians] ask, "is it true that the Trinity is Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, and St. Nicholas?" When an Orthodox Christian hears this, he begins to explain what the Trinity is and is drawn into a useless discussion with those who do not want to hear the right answer, but want to confuse a person in order to undermine his spiritual world. In this sense, the "ancient serpent" is the first sectarian and the first heretic who works against God, His laws and principles.”On feminism:“Saint John Chrysostom writes, 'Eve was created in order to converse with Adam.' Why did she find herself alone without Adam when she converses with the serpent? She violated the principle of conciliarity. That is, the great-mother Eve was the first feminist. She was the first emancipated woman who challenged the authority of her husband and as a result the serpent took advantage of this situation.”On accusing others:“Adam should have said, ‘Yes, I have eaten from the tree from which you forbade me to eat.’ If Adam had said this, the first man would have repented before God and the fallen human race would have been restored. Saint John Chrysostom writes, 'If you were the only man living on earth, for your sake alone the Son of God would have become incarnate on earth and ascended upon the cross to wash you with His Blood.' That is, in the eyes of God, every person is of the greatest value and the Lord always provides for our salvation. But instead of repenting, Adam shifts the blame onto another person and indirectly accuses God.”On the foolishness of believing that sin has no consequence:“Sin is never your or my personal business. Sin always has serious consequences for all our descendants. Exodus says, 'I am the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me' (Ex. 20:5), and God said to Abraham, 'But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again' (Genesis 15:16). We can learn a very important lesson from this. We must refrain from sins at least out of the desire that our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren will not end up without God’s blessing, with the consequences of our sins. Abraham, descending into Egypt, goes to Egypt where he and his people are sold into slavery.”On bringing unbelieving family into the Church:“In the Law of God it is said, 'A Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord, neither shall the tenth generation of them enter into the congregation of the Lord forever' (Deuteronomy 23:3). [However, Ruth] goes with [Naomi], and when they enter Bethlehem, this city, the whole city comes to a stir. They remembered how Elimelech [late husband of Naomi] left this city loaded with all kinds of wealth; and now Naomi walks on foot, according to tradition, barefoot, and leads a Moabite woman by the hand behind her, a woman named Ruth. There are no more children of Naomi, no husband, she lost all this living with them in the fields of Moab. But she gained one soul, the soul of Ruth, and she becomes the great-grandmother of King David...therefore, if modern Canaanite women, Moabites, non-churchgoers, maybe even atheists appear in your families, do not rush to create some kind of scandal, try to do everything to correct and convert them. Naomi did it; she converted Ruth.”Icon is of Ruth and Naomi; Picture is of Father Oleg StenyevRuth.jpgOleg Stenyev.jpg
(DIR) Post #Ar4muNGAtUaj1aRHc0 by plotinus_enjoyer@poa.st
2025-02-13T12:50:57.042721Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@neofugue Not sure where to post this, but I thought you should know this.I’ve very recently purchased Seraphim Rose’s book on St Augustine. While it is true he is most known for his piety, the sources that Fr. Seraphim uses show that he is also an Orthodox theologian of high authority - in the Fifth Ecumenical Council he is considered a theologian of first rank, commanding the same respect as Gregory the Theologian. The sources that Fr. Seraphim used suggest that Augustine‘s “errors“ for the most part aren’t really errors, but exaggerations due to Augustine living in a specific time and space. People tend to forget that Augustine was at that time combatting the Pelagians.And on the question of “absolute“ divine simplicity - another reason for thinking that ADS is no different from DS if Augustine is claimed to teach ADS is that what he said about God’s attributes in the sense that they are internal is a logical conclusion from DS. This means: “to the extent that God has any ’internal attributes’, they must be the same as His essence.” This is exactly what must be said if it is admitted that God is not made of differentiated parts. What has no differentiated parts must be self-same so everything within Him, if there is anything at all, must be the same as each other.This also has other implications. God in Himself can have no name, which automatically means any name of God must apply to the “things around God”. God cannot be knowable by the natural activities of creatures, for creatures are complex and thus their activities are also complex and not simple like God.
(DIR) Post #Ar5gzUGTs8IHdBb4jY by neofugue@annihilation.social
2025-02-13T23:19:23.919992Z
2 likes, 5 repeats
@plotinus_enjoyer Two main points to consider:First point is that Saints in the Orthodox Church are saints by their virtue, not because they are infallible and always correct about every little detail. What matters is not what they say, but rather the spirit of what they say and how it fits within the complete total Orthodox system and worldview. So while we may not accept all of Saint Augustine’s theological propositions, we still respect and hold to most of what he said.Second point is trying to fit Western secular logic into Orthodoxy is the origin of all heresy. Divine simplicity (DS), which is Orthodox, means in this case that we cannot know or understand the Divine Essence. ADS posits that anything we experience from God must be created, but the Orthodox understanding is that we can experience and take part in the real Divine Energies of God.You comment on Divine Simplicity (DS) being no different from ADS is the inevitable conclusion using secular logic, but in our system we do not do dialectics. Just because Moses saw the Divine Energies and not the Divine Essence does not mean we say Moses did not see God, as the Charlton Heston movie would have you believe. Just because Christ had a human nature and a divine nature does not mean that he was two persons, or that Christ was created, or any other similar heresy.Distinction does not entail division in our system, so our goal is not about finding a way to fit secular logic and models into our system, our goal is to redefine secular logic from the starting point of Revelation and incorporate it into Christianity. Just because God has a Divine Essence and Energies does not mean we believe He is with “separate parts”—we believe He has Simplicity, we just simply do not and can not under stand the Divine Essence and as such we are not justified in calling them distinct.TL;DR: stop trying to fit Orthodoxy into secular "logic." There is a reason why we sent all the pagan philosophers into Persia.
(DIR) Post #Ar5jqJ82CsYoLgxd7A by plotinus_enjoyer@poa.st
2025-02-13T23:51:20.245073Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@neofugue Energies is merely talking about presence or manifestation of God’s essence. This already means this does not touch upon God “internally” (to use a metaphor) at all. The usage of the exemplar argument by even Jay Dyer of all people supports this. Claiming that this contradicts the fact that God is without differentiated parts is irrelevant because they’re both touching on two different points in the first place. And if anything, the fact that God ”internally” is entirely simple also tells us why God must be known through energies, or presence, or manifestation.Also, Jay Dyer’s coherentism is ultimately wrong. It makes reason self-referential. So telling me “in this system this works” is not going to convince me. It basically means “accept any system as long as it internally coheres”. Saying that only Orthodoxy offers a fully coherent system is an entirely ad hoc sleight of hand to mask the fact that in principle, coherentism means any system can be chosen as long as it internally coheres.
(DIR) Post #Ar5lNRnR6KAMk3gyUi by neofugue@annihilation.social
2025-02-14T00:08:32.671842Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@plotinus_enjoyer >Energies is merely talking about presence or manifestation of God’s essenceNo it is not, the Divine Energies are explicitly defined as the actions of God, not the Essence of God. It is not the presence of God's essence. God's essence is unknowable and no one who sees the Divine Essence may live.Also, regarding Coherentism—at a certain level all systems are self-referential. This is the crux of Dyer’s Transcendental Argument. Understanding this is why Orthodoxy works, as it espouses that Revelation, not "objective reason," is the core foundation of the system.Foundationalism is metaphysical bullshit and is the reason why Christendom was undone in the West, its importation into Russia the reason why Third Rome fell.
(DIR) Post #Ar5lg3UXgojurdjBGC by plotinus_enjoyer@poa.st
2025-02-14T00:11:53.062887Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@neofugue And btw, simplicity of God is not merely a peripheral opinion about God. If anything, it is central. As an example: claiming God is composite is essentially atheism because this demotes God to the status of creature. And this is touching upon God “internally” which would make this even touchier. My point ultimately is this: simplicity touches upon Orthodox theology in a very important way. So, if Augustine’s understanding is really as different as is claimed to be by some neo-Orthodox, we should expect to see lots of objections from the other Fathers who were actually far more well-versed in metaphysics than any of us moderns. So why aren’t any objections to Augustine’s understanding of simplicity present in the other Fathers?As a side note: I borrowed a book about Orthodox doctrine and theology written by Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev). He does the usual Augustine scapegoating. Yet not once have I seen him reference any Holy Father when levelling criticism at Augustine. But the same author is quick to cite St Mark of Ephesus when offering critique of St Gregory of Nyssa possibly teaching universal salvation. Why is that? Something to think about.
(DIR) Post #Ar5mRvqTQBof38obVQ by plotinus_enjoyer@poa.st
2025-02-14T00:20:32.832340Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@neofugue When I mean presence I mean in the sense that God is understood to be omnipresent in creation. The point ultimately is that energies are in some sense ”external“ to God which even you admit when you talk about energies being God’s actions. Since they are touching on the “external”, why exactly does this have any bearing on God being ”internally” differentiated? My point is that the whole thing is a non-sequitur.Also, I don’t actually posit choosing between Coherentism and Foundationalism. Both are products of modernity and I utterly reject both for implicitly denying the transcendent.
(DIR) Post #Ar5moQivIVf3Bh0lua by neofugue@annihilation.social
2025-02-14T00:24:37.739050Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@plotinus_enjoyer >So, if Augustine’s understanding is really as different as is claimed to be by some neo-OrthodoxThe conversation is done here. No one here said anything about rejecting Simplicity, and our theological models are based on the Ecumenical Councils and other saints such as St. Maximos. Playing the "authority" card with the "neo-Orthodox" poisoned term is simply not acceptable.Also, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev is a degenerate Modernist who came out of Oxford and was the late Met. Kallistos Ware's successor until he sided with Ukraine and was sent to Hungary in exile. Also, he is most likely a faggot and the guy who ratted him out gave the press some questionable photos (at least he was 18, unlike Western counterparts). He is a scumbag who used his power to promote the Covid vax (condemning people for resisting it) and everything he writes should be discarded.If there is any lesson here, please for goodness' sake do your due diligence before reading people especially on theology...
(DIR) Post #Ar5n3QgbicOlPp53Q0 by plotinus_enjoyer@poa.st
2025-02-14T00:27:19.468699Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@neofugue Tbh I do sort of agree on Metropolitan Hilarion, but that isn’t really relevant here. What is relevant is his scapegoating of Augustine and why he does not include citations of other objections from other Holy Fathers about Augustine when he could easily do so for St Gregory of Nyssa. If anyone wants an introduction to Orthodox theology, I would rather they read Fr. Pomazansky. His book is also generally easier to understand anyway.
(DIR) Post #Ar5nikaqbq5R1s5d8S by Appalachian_Crusader@poa.st
2025-02-14T00:34:47.907801Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@plotinus_enjoyer @neofugue Have you ever read Vladimir Lossky? I quite liked his Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. He spends a good deal of time comparing and contrasting Orthodox theology with Neoplatonism, which would probably be right up your alley
(DIR) Post #Ar5nzEwpWGvPo0EcHw by plotinus_enjoyer@poa.st
2025-02-14T00:37:46.348014Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@Appalachian_Crusader @neofugue I’m generally not enthusiastic about modern polemics against the classical Greek tradition because they’re usually badly constructed strawmen. The polemicist is usually just arguing with himself. I know of some who could claim that Plotinus was a dualist who viewed the material world as evil. Why then did he write his polemic against the Gnostics criticising them for holding this exact position, then?
(DIR) Post #Ar5qLYzfrzckFvKzEO by plotinus_enjoyer@poa.st
2025-02-14T01:04:12.993928Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@Appalachian_Crusader @neofugue Or how Plato supposedly taught that the material world is evil. So why does Plato say in his Republic that the philosopher must descend back into the cave after ascending out of it and seeing what is outside?I bring this bit in the Republic up because this is the exact same work that is often cited as proof of Plato’s absolute separation of the intelligible and sensible and how he only disparages the sensible. So there is no “this is a dialogue from a different period” excuse to be used here.
(DIR) Post #Ar5tssSsnV5U3yZnzk by plotinus_enjoyer@poa.st
2025-02-14T01:43:50.362902Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@Appalachian_Crusader @neofugue Also: I am generally suspicious of anyone trying to entirely do away with the classical Greek tradition. It’s like people have forgotten that this is the exact same mistake made by the Protestants, thinking that this will ”purify“ the faith (it didn’t, it just made it worse).The Christian tradition may not be exactly the same as the classical Greek tradition, true. But it is also through the classical Greek tradition that the Christian tradition could be understood at all. Have people forgotten that the Septuagint was written in Greek, as an example?
(DIR) Post #Ar5uFwPSIU1ixRyGBc by neofugue@noauthority.social
2025-02-14T01:48:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Appalachian_Crusader Lossky's Mystical Theology is on my shelf—I bought it after listening to Jay Dyer on it.However, the problem is that when dealing with philosopher-types, it's not the intellectual part—it's the spiritual part—you cannot accept Orthodoxy without changing your epistemological process, as everyone not raised in a traditional Orthodox society is off by default.Also, citing Metropolitan Alfeyev as an "authority" is a big red flag. Alfeyev is a crypto-Universalist.
(DIR) Post #Ar5x3P8IUdjc8hev6u by plotinus_enjoyer@poa.st
2025-02-14T02:19:22.380145Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@neofugue @Appalachian_Crusader I did not cite Hilarion as an authority. Actually read what I wrote. Strawmanning me is dishonest. I cited him as someone who scapegoats Augustine and thus has ample incentive to cite any of the Fathers who would’ve objected to Augustine, if what is claimed about his deviation from Orthodoxy is true. In fact I explicitly clarified this in a follow up comment and if one actually reads what my comment wrote, that is exactly my intended meaning.
(DIR) Post #Ar5xQYCqvN1wwNpJwG by plotinus_enjoyer@poa.st
2025-02-14T02:23:33.477866Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@neofugue @Appalachian_Crusader Also: in my follow-up comment I explicitly wrote that I do agree that Hilarion is not the most reliable source on Orthodox doctrine. But the current discussion is irrelevant to the reliability of his authority which is why I left it out.Portraying me otherwise is dishonourable. If you have any honour left in you, you would apologise.
(DIR) Post #Ar5yXpuzZPLrr2ViXA by neofugue@noauthority.social
2025-02-14T02:36:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@plotinus_enjoyer @Appalachian_Crusader Do not lecture me on Christianity ever again or you get the block.The conversation was done when you brought in the term "neo-Orthodox." With regards to "Augustine scapegoating," we don't do that—the Orthodox accept St. Maximos' theological model over St. Augustine, but the correct Orthodox have nothing against St. Augustine in the first place, just we prefer the other saint's model.Do not mention that faggot Alfeyev here again or you get the block.
(DIR) Post #Ar5zF0OyT5Moox7Rmy by plotinus_enjoyer@poa.st
2025-02-14T02:43:52.932982Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@neofugue @Appalachian_Crusader When I referred to Augustine scapegoating, I wasn’t talking about the whole Orthodox Church if that’s what you think I’m saying. I was referring to specific groups of people who actually have done so. The “neo-Orthodox“ remark is admittedly a bit too much of a snarky comment from my end made partially out of frustration, but this is mostly directed at people who claim to be “patristic” but don’t have that same patristic spirit. Basically the kind of people Fr. Seraphim Rose criticised for being obsessed with “correctness”. This doesn’t really apply to absolutely everyone living in the last 200 years.
(DIR) Post #Ar60WQB3zJzhdiTrjE by BowsacNoodle@poa.st
2025-02-14T02:58:15.474070Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@neofugue @plotinus_enjoyer Perhaps it would be hempful to be a bit more charitable towards one another on this discussion. The Eastern Church's emphasis of the spiritual and mystical is beautiful, and it is one of many things I adore about my faith. The Western church's emphasis on logic, Logos even, is incredible and has formed the backbone of Western philosophy until postmodernism and materialism chiseled away through government sponsored indoctrination. Just as a man has two lungs, so does The Church. All metaphors are imperfect, a rather topical and meta point here.
(DIR) Post #Ar65p1qHBpEzRDRwwq by plotinus_enjoyer@poa.st
2025-02-14T03:57:36.760234Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@BowsacNoodle @neofugue Two lungs I’m wary of, but I think logic and reason plays an important role in any faith This isn’t to invalidate any sort of mystical experience, but logic and reason IMHO is needed as a sort of “counter-balance” of sorts. Relying solely on experience (it is important to remember that I don’t think Orthodoxy does this, btw) is a recipe for disaster and invites the most extreme subjectivism.
(DIR) Post #Ar66vdHH1CtVEXn3zc by plotinus_enjoyer@poa.st
2025-02-14T04:10:00.630630Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@BowsacNoodle @neofugue Oh, and also: telling people to accept doctrines with no recourse to rational justification (again, I need to stress that I don’t think Orthodoxy is like this) makes one resemble the petty tyrant who demands that all bow down to his irrational passions and desires.
(DIR) Post #Ar6D91pTe9eOrvYlcm by BowsacNoodle@poa.st
2025-02-14T05:19:41.806451Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@plotinus_enjoyer @neofugue >Two lungs I’m wary ofWhy? A body can survive with one lung but is better with both. Agreed on the rest of your post. Charismaticism and the search for experience can lead people to a lot of weird places. When Christ is truly the "North star" guide, it sometimes leads people back towards tradition. Most of us don't thrive in an environment without the guardrails of The Church, and that's okay.
(DIR) Post #Ar6DdHx8GSSbYvZN0i by plotinus_enjoyer@poa.st
2025-02-14T05:25:08.294130Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@BowsacNoodle @neofugue The two lungs bit is usually said in the context of ecumenism (AFAIK anyway) which I must say I don’t agree with
(DIR) Post #Ar6Eis8LGx3HB32UCW by BowsacNoodle@poa.st
2025-02-14T05:37:22.468738Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@plotinus_enjoyer @neofugue I think there ought to be a better word than ecumenism, because that's been tainted by people pushing for us to accept female bishops and rainbow flag weirdos as valid Christians who should have a seat at the table for theological discussion. Obviously I don't mean that, which I'm sure you understand. I try to not make heresy mountains out of heterodox molehills, but perhaps I shouldn't be so lax.
(DIR) Post #Ar6FhFm8V9uNsNRcO0 by plotinus_enjoyer@poa.st
2025-02-14T05:48:15.512510Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@BowsacNoodle @neofugue The other thing about ecumenism though (as I understand it) is that it tends to dissolve distinctions that are supposed to be there and claim that everything is the same Lloyd P Gerson isn’t a Christian but I think what he wrote regarding how Plato thought a philosopher should be is apt: the philosopher should see same-ness when others see distinction and distinction when others see same-ness.
(DIR) Post #Ar6GEmafW72bCr4JeK by poolsclosed@eientei.org
2025-02-14T05:54:18.874983Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@neofugue
(DIR) Post #Ar7rUVzKtyofoLvoNU by plotinus_enjoyer@poa.st
2025-02-15T00:26:26.121935Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@BowsacNoodle @neofugue Oh, and something on reason and coherentism - without going into too much detail, Jay Dyer’s account of both is suspiciously close to John Locke’s account of reason. Locke thinks that reason does not terminate in the truth of things but is only capable of seeking self-consistency and the agreement of ideas. For someone supposedly “traditional” he seems ready to adopt one of the core ideas of one of the fathers of modernity.
(DIR) Post #Ar7vUZIYzj83tUCozI by plotinus_enjoyer@poa.st
2025-02-15T01:11:16.494556Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@BowsacNoodle @neofugue There are also some who claim that even the classical attributes of God are rationally proven, what is not proven is that we should worship God. But this “critique” amounts to a non-objection and merely reveals the ignorance of the objector.If it is proven that God‘s goodness is the highest and God is good and perfect by nature of Himself, it follows that God should be worshipped. If the perfection and absolute goodness of God is not a sufficient condition for worship, then it becomes mystifying why exactly is God even worshipped in the first place.