Author Topic: discussion about orthodox religion #1  (Read 72237 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline palimpsest

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2639
  • nulla dies sine linea
    • View Profile
    • CERHAS
I. BACKGROUND & HISTORY
« Reply #435 on: July 14, 2005, 10:03:34 AM »
I. The first part of my explanation



BACKGROUND & HISTORY

The topic of this thread is “Orthodoxy” and what is it about.
It is proper I think to consider it in relation to Western Christianity because most of us are dominated today, globally, but a western-like thinking and picture of the world. We take for granted today certain axioms about “our world” that have distinctive western-like features, in other words we are dominated by a certain ontology and a certain kind of metaphysics [my God, what is talking about???]. That means that most of us are trained to interpret/understand/think in a certain western-way, and to presume roughly the same things. Most of us understand the same thing when we talk about “truth”, “reality”[Latin word], “time”, “space”, etc.

These “western” presumptions and interpretations have a history of their own that starts [generally speaking and commonly acknowledged] with ancient Greek thought [mainly Plato and Aristotle]. Almost all our basic concepts come from these damn Greeks: “physics”, “metaphysics”, “philosophy”, “theology” and so on. Ancient Greek thought was very… “rich”, and the main problem [in my view] is that this “heritage” comes to us [western-thinkers that we all are] mainly through the narrow filter of its Roman-Latin interpretation, a good deal “poorer” in subtle thinking than Greek thought [my opinion].

It is also commonly acknowledged that Christianity was “infused” by Greek thinking. My first point is that Western Christianity has inherited a more Roman-Latin [I name it “legalistic”] interpretation of the Gospels whereas the Eastern [Byzantine] Orthodox Christianity has inherited a more Greek [I name it “iconic”] interpretation of the Gospels. This doesn't mean that the western interpretation is "bad" and the eastern one is "good", just that I am inclined to follow the eastern one because it seems to me more "authentic".




Notice: It is very difficult to talk in only a few lines about this complicated history! Please don’t judge my assertions too swiftly!


The second part of my explanation will follow.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by palimpsest »
I, Claudius

bluetoria

  • Guest
Re: discussion about orthodox religion
« Reply #436 on: July 14, 2005, 10:09:34 AM »
I follow your point, I think, but I still believe that both the eastern (Orthodox) & western (RC) traditions developed their owntheologies. It was the theology of 'filioque' which led to the separation of the Churches, was it not?

Offline palimpsest

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2639
  • nulla dies sine linea
    • View Profile
    • CERHAS
Re: discussion about orthodox religion
« Reply #437 on: July 14, 2005, 10:27:06 AM »
Yes! This exactly the point I'm aiming at, but I need to make this long introduction because I feel it necessary. Otherwise it remains an obscure and tiny "theological" problem, and [in my opinion] it is not "just" that. You will see.
I, Claudius

bluetoria

  • Guest
Re: discussion about orthodox religion
« Reply #438 on: July 14, 2005, 10:32:46 AM »
Sorry, I was being a little hasty!  ;D Do you think it might be better if you write your next point on a new thread "Discussion etc. 2" because this is so long it takes ages to open?

Offline palimpsest

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2639
  • nulla dies sine linea
    • View Profile
    • CERHAS
Re: discussion about orthodox religion
« Reply #439 on: July 14, 2005, 11:00:01 AM »
OK, I'll "create" a new one. ;D


see "discussion about Orthodoxy (2)"
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by palimpsest »
I, Claudius