Discussion Veganism

[Aedra]

And reguarding adam and eve, I was answering to before adam & eve there was nothing since you placed them on the date of creation

Uhh, no. I didn't place them in the moment of creation. I believe the days in genesis are literal so obviously they can't be created in that moment.

Also, the callendar was used from circa 600 to 1600 or so, augustine was long dead. The Fathers made approximations yeah, but neither were these approximations binding, nor was the callendar itself. It simply is this way.

This is literal nonsense. I never said the calendar was binding dummy. I said the age written there is binding. Whether you use the Julian/Gregorian calendar or the Byzantine Era Calendar, the age of the earth remains the same. Only difference being that you separate the years before and after Christ from each other while the Byzantine Calendar does not. Same amount of time, different way of using it. Your words here are essentially not even an argument, just one big paragraph of marge.

Also yeah I do guess that Church Fathers would find the idea bizarre because they just weren't as knowledgeable about the natural laws as we are, no shit.

>implying you know better than they do

Pride. You trust your hecking science more than the tradition. You want to make your faith compatible with what an atheist sees as "reality". This is why no one takes western Christianity seriously. Because you're weak, spineless and unwilling to defend your own tradition. All this drivel reminds me of a certain quote by Saint Basil where he talks about how the punishment of pagan scientists will be all the greater for their scientific achievements, because in their pride and know it all attitude they rejected Christ, assuming they know better than what is written in the scriptures.

But even then, they did see that to some things could be interpreted differently than what the initial text meant.

Did they?
Venerable Ephraim the Syrian :

No one should think that the six-day creation is an allegory; likewise it is impermissible to speak as if … names herewith presented in the account signify either nothing, or signify something else.

Saint Basil the Great :

I know the rules of allegory … There are those who, accepting what is written not in its plain sense, say that that which is called water is not water, but some other substance, and to plants and fish they give a meaning of their own discretion. But hearing of grass, I understand grass; and plants, fish, beasts and livestock—everything—as it is called so I receive, not being ashamed of the Gospel (Rom. 1:16) … It seems to me it is this which has not been comprehended by those who, according to their own understanding, have set out to give some soaring and panoramic importance to the Scripture. But it means to set up oneself as wiser than the sayings of the Spirit and under the guise of interpretation to introduce one’s own thoughts. Therefore we will understand it as is written.

The real thought process behind calling everything allegory is simple. It's because you are ashamed of what is written in it and can't bring yourself to actually believe it as it is, so you make excuses to cope. This is actually a step towards atheism in a way, since you are already devaluing the scriptures in your mind. Ready to dismiss whatever you don't like as allegory.

 

[Nihilma]

This is literal nonsense. I never said the calendar was binding dummy. I said the age written there is binding. Whether you use the Julian/Gregorian calendar or the Byzantine Era Calendar, the age of the earth remains the same. Only difference being that you separate the years before and after Christ from each other while the Byzantine Calendar does not. Same amount of time, different way of using it. Your words here are essentially not even an argument, just one big paragraph of marge.

I'm going to focus mostly on this.
When I say the callendar isn't binding, I mean that the theories behind the callendar itself are not binding, the canon 3 of the council is on a completely different subject than the age of the earth, and uses a precise date to enact at which point the decision would become binding.
If you truly think that this callendar was used for anything other than the sake of convenience, then you have to prove that the canon actually was on the subject of the age of the earth and again it isn't.

You are right in saying that what is binding isn't the callendar but the date, because if the date was written using the gregorian callendar it wouldn't have made any difference.
But the gregorian callendar isn't based on the supposed beginnings of time, so if it was used, then your fallacy couldn't even be written.
Hence since the callendar is not the important part but the date mentionned, and since the callendar isn't binding and the topic of the 3rd canon isn't the age of the earth, it is safe to assume that the orthodox church DOESN'T put a binding statement on what to believe reguarding the age of the earth.

>implying you know better than they do
Pride.

I don't imply I know better than the Fathers on doctrine, I imply I know better than them on natural laws. Which is a normal assumption.
I know the exact size of the earth, they didn't, that makes me better than them ? No. I just know better how the natural laws of the world work than them

 

[Nihilma]

Also to cite Augustine once again :
"When we reflect upon the first establishment of creatures in the works of God from which he rested on the seventh day, we should not think either of those days as being like these ones governed by the sun, nor of that working as resembling the way God now works in time; but we should reflect rather upon the work from which times began, the work of making all things at once, simultaneously."
So yeah they weren't all agreeing, that's false.

The real thought process behind calling everything allegory is simple. It's because you are ashamed of what is written in it and can't bring yourself to actually believe it as it is, so you make excuses to cope. This is actually a step towards atheism in a way, since you are already devaluing the scriptures in your mind. Ready to dismiss whatever you don't like as allegory.

No. The book of nature teaches me how to understand the book of the Word, and the book of the Word teaches me how to understand the book of nature.
What is written on moral I will not try to interpret in progressive terms.
What is written on natural law I will see through the lense of natural law

 

[Aedra]

I'm going to focus mostly on this.
When I say the callendar isn't binding, I mean that the theories behind the callendar itself are not binding, the canon 3 of the council is on a completely different subject than the age of the earth, and uses a precise date to enact at which point the decision would become binding.
If you truly think that this callendar was used for anything other than the sake of convenience, then you have to prove that the canon actually was on the subject of the age of the earth and again it isn't.

You are right in saying that what is binding isn't the callendar but the date, because if the date was written using the gregorian callendar it wouldn't have made any difference.
But the gregorian callendar isn't based on the supposed beginnings of time, so if it was used, then your fallacy couldn't even be written.
Hence since the callendar is not the important part but the date mentionned, and since the callendar isn't binding and the topic of the 3rd canon isn't the age of the earth, it is safe to assume that the orthodox church DOESN'T put a binding statement on what to believe reguarding the age of the earth.

I don't imply I know better than the Fathers on doctrine, I imply I know better than them on natural laws. Which is a normal assumption.
I know the exact size of the earth, they didn't, that makes me better than them ? No. I just know better how the natural laws of the world work than them

Also to cite Augustine once again :
"When we reflect upon the first establishment of creatures in the works of God from which he rested on the seventh day, we should not think either of those days as being like these ones governed by the sun, nor of that working as resembling the way God now works in time; but we should reflect rather upon the work from which times began, the work of making all things at once, simultaneously."
So yeah they weren't all agreeing, that's false.

No. The book of nature teaches me how to understand the boof of the Word, and the book of the Word teaches me how to understand the book of nature

Honestly man, I won't even bother anymore. The fact that you're so ready and willing to defend worldly ideas over what the fathers believed in says it all. Enjoy the collapse.

 

[Nihilma]

Man I just like talking about theology and discussing theories about it all.
Why has it always gotta be so passionate ?

 

[Aedra]

Man I just like talking about theology and discussing theories about it all.
Why has it always gotta be so passionate ?

One last thing I will say. If you wanna understand the proper Orthodox Christian position on the matter, I highly recommend reading Genesis, Creation and Early Man by Seraphim Rose. It's all too complex to write it down here, pick up the book either for free through z-library or buy it and read it. It will change how you see things a lot.

 

[Nihilma]

One last thing I will say. If you wanna understand the proper Orthodox Christian position on the matter, I highly recommend reading Genesis, Creation and Early Man by Seraphim Rose. It's all too complex to write it down here, pick up the book either for free through z-library or buy it and read it. It will change how you see things a lot.

I'll put that on my long lost of books I still have to read, but I'll try, you have my word.
Thanks !