This forum was closed on October 1st, 2010. However, the archives are open to the public and filled with vast amounts of good reading and information for you to enjoy. If you wish to meet some Wardrobians, please visit the Into the Wardrobe Facebook group.

Edited Title: The war of modernity vs paradosis

Re: Edited Title: Beards

Postby Xara » 24 Jun 2009, 23:15

As you will all know, the clean shaven look arises from Roman styles. I was brought up by my Greek Cypriot mother to think that secondary masculine attributes, such as the beard, were to be worn and not removed.

This web page is roughly what I was taught:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/clergy_hair.aspx

Although I have tried shaving off my beard as an adult I looked too much like Mr Potato Head without it and had to shave 2 times a day. It seems that as I get older I look more and more Greek, including the beard. Learning to live with it.

As for hygiene, I shampoo it along with the rest of my hair every day. In any case food is not likely to get stuck in it as I chew with my mouth closed. When I have worn it long I find that girls often want to plait it. So no one seems repulsed. Little kids love stroking it as if it is a kitten clinging in a most unlikely way to my face.

However in the main, I tend to forget it's there, even when as big as my avatar wears it (Postodave will bear witness to the avatar's accuracy). From my viewpoint I can't see it as I am a young bloke looking out from these eyes. Except when I see it in mirrors when I jump and say "who's that old Greek guy following me?"

What's the Orthodox "line"? We men are to be ikons of Christ. That is helped by copying his style.
Experience: that most brutal of teachers.
Xara
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Nov 2008
Location: Wales

Re: Edited Title: Beards

Postby Bluegoat » 26 Jun 2009, 12:03

Xara wrote:As you will all know, the clean shaven look arises from Roman styles. I was brought up by my Greek Cypriot mother to think that secondary masculine attributes, such as the beard, were to be worn and not removed.

This web page is roughly what I was taught:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/clergy_hair.aspx

Although I have tried shaving off my beard as an adult I looked too much like Mr Potato Head without it and had to shave 2 times a day. It seems that as I get older I look more and more Greek, including the beard. Learning to live with it.

As for hygiene, I shampoo it along with the rest of my hair every day. In any case food is not likely to get stuck in it as I chew with my mouth closed. When I have worn it long I find that girls often want to plait it. So no one seems repulsed. Little kids love stroking it as if it is a kitten clinging in a most unlikely way to my face.

However in the main, I tend to forget it's there, even when as big as my avatar wears it (Postodave will bear witness to the avatar's accuracy). From my viewpoint I can't see it as I am a young bloke looking out from these eyes. Except when I see it in mirrors when I jump and say "who's that old Greek guy following me?"

What's the Orthodox "line"? We men are to be ikons of Christ. That is helped by copying his style.


Do you think that it is significant that not all ethnic groups have the secondary sexual characteristic of beards?

I'm also curious about the Greek army - are they allowed to wear beards? Most Canadian soldiers aren't, and it can always be subject to removal for operational reasons.
User avatar
Bluegoat
 
Posts: 205
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Nova Scotia

Re: Edited Title: Beards

Postby Xara » 26 Jun 2009, 13:51

Bluegoat wrote:Do you think that it is significant that not all ethnic groups have the secondary sexual characteristic of beards?


It is indicative of testosterone below a significant threshold of that triggering beard growth.

I'm also curious about the Greek army - are they allowed to wear beards?


AFAIK yes.
Experience: that most brutal of teachers.
Xara
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Nov 2008
Location: Wales

Re: Edited Title: Beards

Postby rusmeister » 26 Jun 2009, 15:45

A reminder from the OP (I didn't intend to become "it", but that choice was out of my hands) - that the title on beards is misleading to the intent of the OP.
If you refer back to the OP you'll see that the thrust is broader - it is about modern views in general and their opposition to historical Christianity.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Re: Edited Title: Beards

Postby Bluegoat » 26 Jun 2009, 20:46

rusmeister wrote:A reminder from the OP (I didn't intend to become "it", but that choice was out of my hands) - that the title on beards is misleading to the intent of the OP.
If you refer back to the OP you'll see that the thrust is broader - it is about modern views in general and their opposition to historical Christianity.


It seems to me that some modern views are in opposition to historical Christianity. Some are not. Many use a different language, so it can be unclear in some cases.

The same would be true for what I'll call "authentic modern Christianity"; perhaps someone will have a better word for it.
User avatar
Bluegoat
 
Posts: 205
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Nova Scotia

Re: Edited Title: Beards

Postby rusmeister » 27 Jun 2009, 02:40

Bluegoat wrote:
rusmeister wrote:A reminder from the OP (I didn't intend to become "it", but that choice was out of my hands) - that the title on beards is misleading to the intent of the OP.
If you refer back to the OP you'll see that the thrust is broader - it is about modern views in general and their opposition to historical Christianity.


It seems to me that some modern views are in opposition to historical Christianity. Some are not. Many use a different language, so it can be unclear in some cases.

The same would be true for what I'll call "authentic modern Christianity"; perhaps someone will have a better word for it.

We may be proceeding from different understandings of "modern". I do not mean "anything that is claimed today". I mean"that which is claimed today that was not claimed in earlier times (most especially from the beginning)" - in reference to Christianity. I'm speaking about where there really is opposition. it is often styled as 'growth' of 'development', but if it, in effect, says that earlier teachings were wrong - more to the point, that earlier Authority was wrong (or 'our ealier understanding of Authority'), where do we draw the line? How can we know that any of it was ever true or is true now? If we say that either the valid authority or our understanding of it was wrong in the 6th or 12th centuries, then we have no basis for knowing that it is right now, that the 25th century won't make the same findings about us.
Some things, like beards, are only relative symbols of this - they don't matter so much, although they can be symptomatic of a general malaise in society, such as in our time, when said society is gradually moving to erase all distinction between men and women, which is only a step toward the ultimate negation of Creation itself (an image that comes to mind is that of Tolkien's elves being twisted into orcs).

Note that no one (except for you, Bluegoat) made any kind of response at all to my post on our increasing inability to understand thought of earlier times, how education and the media play into that, and how pluralism defines them.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Re: Edited Title: Beards

Postby Bluegoat » 27 Jun 2009, 13:33

rusmeister wrote:
Bluegoat wrote:
rusmeister wrote:A reminder from the OP (I didn't intend to become "it", but that choice was out of my hands) - that the title on beards is misleading to the intent of the OP.
If you refer back to the OP you'll see that the thrust is broader - it is about modern views in general and their opposition to historical Christianity.


It seems to me that some modern views are in opposition to historical Christianity. Some are not. Many use a different language, so it can be unclear in some cases.

The same would be true for what I'll call "authentic modern Christianity"; perhaps someone will have a better word for it.

We may be proceeding from different understandings of "modern". I do not mean "anything that is claimed today". I mean"that which is claimed today that was not claimed in earlier times (most especially from the beginning)" - in reference to Christianity. I'm speaking about where there really is opposition. it is often styled as 'growth' of 'development', but if it, in effect, says that earlier teachings were wrong - more to the point, that earlier Authority was wrong (or 'our ealier understanding of Authority'), where do we draw the line? How can we know that any of it was ever true or is true now? If we say that either the valid authority or our understanding of it was wrong in the 6th or 12th centuries, then we have no basis for knowing that it is right now, that the 25th century won't make the same findings about us.
Some things, like beards, are only relative symbols of this - they don't matter so much, although they can be symptomatic of a general malaise in society, such as in our time, when said society is gradually moving to erase all distinction between men and women, which is only a step toward the ultimate negation of Creation itself (an image that comes to mind is that of Tolkien's elves being twisted into orcs).

Note that no one (except for you, Bluegoat) made any kind of response at all to my post on our increasing inability to understand thought of earlier times, how education and the media play into that, and how pluralism defines them.


I think it is wrong to say that there is no development of doctrine - it happens. There is no way to select a date and say "after this time, we have got it all, we will not ever increase in insight or have a better understanding." Tradition is a living thing, a theologian today can impact our understanding just like one in the second or third century could.

Now, could that person say something that directly contradicted what the Church had said before, and be correct? I'm inclined to say no, but I think we need to be very careful about this, that in fact that is what is happening. Very often we grasp desperately onto peripherals as if they were the heart of the thing, when they are not. Other times we get caught up in battles of language and do not even try to really understand each other. This is why the Church should, I think, generally be very slow both in accepting and rejecting "new" ideas or formulations.

A lot is said about the changes in the understanding of gender and sexuality, marriage and family life, beginning in the 20th century. And that is really a question the Church needs to address, if for no other reason than people are asking about it. I can't help but be glad of some of these changes, though I think many have been unhealthy for society. I'm very glad that I was able to go to university and serve in the military, that I can vote and have the same legal standing as men, and that I was in a position to choose whether I wanted to pursue family life or some other vocation. I think it is great that in many cases men are able to have more nurturing parental relationships than in the past. I'm glad I can wear pants. But I don't see that these things contradict Christianity, though that is certainly how it is often presented. So that's my personal, experiential take on it.

I am always hesitant to worry about pluralism as a "philosophy" because I think in many places, certainly here in Canada, it is simply a fact. There are people from a variety of cultures and religious backgrounds, who have some differing ideas about life, the universe, and everything. I need to live with them. I find it more of a practical issue than a purely philosophical one.
User avatar
Bluegoat
 
Posts: 205
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Nova Scotia

Re: Edited Title: The war of modernity vs paradosis

Postby postodave » 28 Jun 2009, 11:54

I'm right with you bluegoat.
Back in the seventies there was a lot of talk about equality - as in equality of pay for people of different sexes doing the same job - today we talk about equality and diversity. We no longer say, certainly here in the UK, that justice demands that all are treated alike but rather that justice demands the recognition of legitimate diversity. Personally I'd like to see William Blakes slogan - One law for the lion and ox is oppression - written outside every public building. Christians can certainly take advantage of this focus, for example during a recent diversity event we had a local pastor come into the College where I work to talk about the Christian view of abortion.

As bluegoat is implying we need to make a distinction between political pluralism - different views should be tolerated by the state - and ontological pluralism - different views even though contradictory are all true. To put it another way and rather simplistically we can chose between modernism which says we must all seek truth but may differ and postmodernism which says there is no truth to seek. What I think we are unlikely to do is return to a historically earlier period where people in a given culture all tended to have basically the same worldview. We need to seek civility in diversity.

Incidentally - and this is controversial and I personally have no easy answers - Rus has suggested that we need to recognise the differences between sexes but opposes gender realignment on the grounds that God cannot have made a mistake. The argument seems odd because the logic would imply that a person born with a sight defect cannot have it corrected because to do so would imply that God has made a mistake. The whole basis for anyone seeking gender realignment is an assumption that men and women are different not only physically but psychologically - that a person can feel male or female. So this is really supporting the idea of the kind of gender differences Rus wants us to recognise. It gets really complicated when you get a person who develops characteristics of both sexes. Should there be an opperation to push them definitely one way or the other or should we leave them as hermaphrodites on the grounds that God must have intended this. I don't know.
So I drew my sword and got ready
But the lamb ran away with the crown
postodave
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Oct 2004

Re: Edited Title: The war of modernity vs paradosis

Postby Bluegoat » 28 Jun 2009, 12:19

postodave wrote:I'm right with you bluegoat.
Back in the seventies there was a lot of talk about equality - as in equality of pay for people of different sexes doing the same job - today we talk about equality and diversity. We no longer say, certainly here in the UK, that justice demands that all are treated alike but rather that justice demands the recognition of legitimate diversity. Personally I'd like to see William Blakes slogan - One law for the lion and ox is oppression - written outside every public building. Christians can certainly take advantage of this focus, for example during a recent diversity event we had a local pastor come into the College where I work to talk about the Christian view of abortion.

As bluegoat is implying we need to make a distinction between political pluralism - different views should be tolerated by the state - and ontological pluralism - different views even though contradictory are all true. To put it another way and rather simplistically we can chose between modernism which says we must all seek truth but may differ and postmodernism which says there is no truth to seek. What I think we are unlikely to do is return to a historically earlier period where people in a given culture all tended to have basically the same worldview. We need to seek civility in diversity.

Incidentally - and this is controversial and I personally have no easy answers - Rus has suggested that we need to recognise the differences between sexes but opposes gender realignment on the grounds that God cannot have made a mistake. The argument seems odd because the logic would imply that a person born with a sight defect cannot have it corrected because to do so would imply that God has made a mistake. The whole basis for anyone seeking gender realignment is an assumption that men and women are different not only physically but psychologically - that a person can feel male or female. So this is really supporting the idea of the kind of gender differences Rus wants us to recognise. It gets really complicated when you get a person who develops characteristics of both sexes. Should there be an opperation to push them definitely one way or the other or should we leave them as hermaphrodites on the grounds that God must have intended this. I don't know.



Yes, I think the gender realignment issue is a difficult one. Part of the reason is that we really are rather in the dark as to what, biologically speaking, constitutes gender. Sure, there are the obvious external physical differences, and then there are the slightly less obvious internal ones. Then there are the rather mysterious differences in brain structures, horomones, etc that we know have a strong impact on peoples perceptions of their own gender. And, what exactly do we mean when we say gender anyway?

But to say that God cannot have "made a mistake" with regards to gender seems rather arbitrary - we repair club feet and cleft palates, I'm sure if there was a way to repair chromosomal abnormalities in utero we would, we transplant or patch kids hearts... We even treat brain disorders like epilepsy or schizophrenia which seem like they may, in some cases at least, be inherited. I think often what we really mean is, if we can't see the mistake, it must not be real.

Now, why are people born with these conditions? Are they signs that God made a mistake? Well, I would say, speaking theologically, that they are not. They are for the greater glory of God. BUT, I also think it's ok to repair a child's cleft palate - that might be to the greater glory of God too.

It isn't clear to me that problems with gender - from the clear ones like hermaphroditism, or the less clear ones that seem to involve brain structures, are any different. (And generally, no one raises ethical issues about surgery/drugs for hermaphrodites, I suppose because we can see that there is indeed a "mistake".)

Now, I don't think I would generally recommend gender reassignment surgery to anyone, as I think it's rather primitive and brutal. It might indeed be better to accept oneself as something a little different. Our society, and certainly Christian societies, tend to make this rather difficult though - we like things to be clear. And I can't help but think that the idea that God can't have made a mistake plays into it. There aren't a lot of issues where I think science suggests that Christians should reexamine how their principles actually apply to certain cases, but this is perhaps one, mental illness being another.

But it is very interesting indeed that in many ways, this issue, and even the question of homosexuality, actually tends to support the idea that sexuality and gender have a deep biological basis, as opposed to the view that we are all the same with a few different parts. (In fact, there is a rather strange branch of feminism, though it is a weird designation in that context, that says there is no such thing as gender, only gradations on a scale, like big and little noses.)
User avatar
Bluegoat
 
Posts: 205
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Nova Scotia

Re: Edited Title: The war of modernity vs paradosis

Postby rusmeister » 03 Jul 2009, 11:48

postodave wrote:I'm right with you bluegoat.
Back in the seventies there was a lot of talk about equality - as in equality of pay for people of different sexes doing the same job - today we talk about equality and diversity. We no longer say, certainly here in the UK, that justice demands that all are treated alike but rather that justice demands the recognition of legitimate diversity. Personally I'd like to see William Blakes slogan - One law for the lion and ox is oppression - written outside every public building. Christians can certainly take advantage of this focus, for example during a recent diversity event we had a local pastor come into the College where I work to talk about the Christian view of abortion.

As bluegoat is implying we need to make a distinction between political pluralism - different views should be tolerated by the state - and ontological pluralism - different views even though contradictory are all true. To put it another way and rather simplistically we can chose between modernism which says we must all seek truth but may differ and postmodernism which says there is no truth to seek. What I think we are unlikely to do is return to a historically earlier period where people in a given culture all tended to have basically the same worldview. We need to seek civility in diversity.

Incidentally - and this is controversial and I personally have no easy answers - Rus has suggested that we need to recognise the differences between sexes but opposes gender realignment on the grounds that God cannot have made a mistake. The argument seems odd because the logic would imply that a person born with a sight defect cannot have it corrected because to do so would imply that God has made a mistake. The whole basis for anyone seeking gender realignment is an assumption that men and women are different not only physically but psychologically - that a person can feel male or female. So this is really supporting the idea of the kind of gender differences Rus wants us to recognise. It gets really complicated when you get a person who develops characteristics of both sexes. Should there be an opperation to push them definitely one way or the other or should we leave them as hermaphrodites on the grounds that God must have intended this. I don't know.


What I think we are unlikely to do is return to a historically earlier period where people in a given culture all tended to have basically the same worldview. We need to seek civility in diversity.

I guess what I'd say to this is that we need to discover and hold the right view, the Orthodox view, no matter what anyone else does, and then we need to deal with others charitably. That we should 'seek civility' in diversity' does not necessarily follow from that at all.

On people born with defects.: I'd refer to the blind man in the Gospels, when they asked whose sin was the fault of the blindness. Bluegoat is right on that one.
The wrong approach is to then praise the difference as "diversity" and as something normal. The right approach is to acknowledge that it is not normal, and then deal with it charitably. Such people, in the Orthodox Church, would be treated like everyone else, because everyone has some fatal passions, some desires driving them, something wrong with them. They bring who and what they are, what they experience, and they commit to struggling with their passions, rather than embracing them and treating them as normal - just as everyone else does.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Re: Edited Title: The war of modernity vs paradosis

Postby rusmeister » 03 Jul 2009, 12:02

Bluegoat wrote:Yes, I think the gender realignment issue is a difficult one. Part of the reason is that we really are rather in the dark as to what, biologically speaking, constitutes gender. Sure, there are the obvious external physical differences, and then there are the slightly less obvious internal ones. Then there are the rather mysterious differences in brain structures, horomones, etc that we know have a strong impact on peoples perceptions of their own gender. And, what exactly do we mean when we say gender anyway?

This has been one of my points - language. As soon as you say "gender" instead of "sex" you are starting on the wrong foot. The word traditionally refers, above all else, to grammatical gender - a social construction, and therefore, in this use it is a linguistic lie. Sex is an absolute characteristic - and deformities are just that - things that are wrong; not part of intended design, any more than sin was part of God's plan for creation. Whenever you use the word 'gender' we are already talking different languages. I no longer accept it. I may use it - but only when charity demands it. Here I'll say charity demands NOT using it - so that the truth may be revealed and discussed.

Bluegoat wrote:But to say that God cannot have "made a mistake" with regards to gender seems rather arbitrary - we repair club feet and cleft palates, I'm sure if there was a way to repair chromosomal abnormalities in utero we would, we transplant or patch kids hearts... We even treat brain disorders like epilepsy or schizophrenia which seem like they may, in some cases at least, be inherited. I think often what we really mean is, if we can't see the mistake, it must not be real.

Agreed. And to PoD's concern about what to do - sure, if it's fixable, fix it. But many things are not fixable - and then they are a cross to bear. In that event, we are ordered to pick it up and bear it.


Bluegoat wrote:Now, why are people born with these conditions? Are they signs that God made a mistake? Well, I would say, speaking theologically, that they are not. They are for the greater glory of God. BUT, I also think it's ok to repair a child's cleft palate - that might be to the greater glory of God too.

It isn't clear to me that problems with gender - from the clear ones like hermaphroditism, or the less clear ones that seem to involve brain structures, are any different. (And generally, no one raises ethical issues about surgery/drugs for hermaphrodites, I suppose because we can see that there is indeed a "mistake".)

Now, I don't think I would generally recommend gender reassignment surgery to anyone, as I think it's rather primitive and brutal. It might indeed be better to accept oneself as something a little different. Our society, and certainly Christian societies, tend to make this rather difficult though - we like things to be clear. And I can't help but think that the idea that God can't have made a mistake plays into it. There aren't a lot of issues where I think science suggests that Christians should reexamine how their principles actually apply to certain cases, but this is perhaps one, mental illness being another.

But it is very interesting indeed that in many ways, this issue, and even the question of homosexuality, actually tends to support the idea that sexuality and gender have a deep biological basis, as opposed to the view that we are all the same with a few different parts. (In fact, there is a rather strange branch of feminism, though it is a weird designation in that context, that says there is no such thing as gender, only gradations on a scale, like big and little noses.)

Just a quick comment on the modern euphemistic language that invents terms like "gender reassignment surgery" - talk about an evil euphemism! As I said, many things are not fixable, and we're still left with something wrong. One of the things that is very often wrong is the person's perception ("I should have been born a woman!" or whatever) - especially when there is nothing physically wrong with the person's sex - in which case I'll say perception is ALWAYS wrong.

Also, science suggests an awful lot of things that Christians should not do, although certainly there are cases where we need discernment and prayer to be able to apply principles. But if they're not Orthodox (big and small 'o' being the same here) principles, I'd say it doesn't really matter.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Re: Edited Title: Beards

Postby rusmeister » 03 Jul 2009, 12:24

Bluegoat wrote:I think it is wrong to say that there is no development of doctrine - it happens. There is no way to select a date and say "after this time, we have got it all, we will not ever increase in insight or have a better understanding." Tradition is a living thing, a theologian today can impact our understanding just like one in the second or third century could.

Now, could that person say something that directly contradicted what the Church had said before, and be correct? I'm inclined to say no, but I think we need to be very careful about this, that in fact that is what is happening. Very often we grasp desperately onto peripherals as if they were the heart of the thing, when they are not. Other times we get caught up in battles of language and do not even try to really understand each other. This is why the Church should, I think, generally be very slow both in accepting and rejecting "new" ideas or formulations.

A lot is said about the changes in the understanding of gender and sexuality, marriage and family life, beginning in the 20th century. And that is really a question the Church needs to address, if for no other reason than people are asking about it. I can't help but be glad of some of these changes, though I think many have been unhealthy for society. I'm very glad that I was able to go to university and serve in the military, that I can vote and have the same legal standing as men, and that I was in a position to choose whether I wanted to pursue family life or some other vocation. I think it is great that in many cases men are able to have more nurturing parental relationships than in the past. I'm glad I can wear pants. But I don't see that these things contradict Christianity, though that is certainly how it is often presented. So that's my personal, experiential take on it.

I am always hesitant to worry about pluralism as a "philosophy" because I think in many places, certainly here in Canada, it is simply a fact. There are people from a variety of cultures and religious backgrounds, who have some differing ideas about life, the universe, and everything. I need to live with them. I find it more of a practical issue than a purely philosophical one.


But please note that I did not say there is no development of doctrine. What I said was more specifically contradiction of what has always been taught STYLING ITSELF as growth or development. The problem of homosexual behavior IS something that impacts society at all levels and IS an attack on the family, disguising itself in language of love and completely contradicting what not only Christianity, but pretty much all of humanity has always known, and it claims to be "growth of understanding"! Does no one see Screwtape in this?

I do agree on slowness - that is, in fact, how Orthodoxy works.

The examples that you present on what women can now do are red herrings - they are not things that the Orthodox Church teaches on men and women, although many conservative Christians of other stripes have claimed them as teachings. In orthodoxy these things (women in military, pants) have always been practiced without teaching (they are not absolutes, but guidelines - ideals, if you prefer). They arise organically out of Orthodox life and worship. I'd ask if you've read Chesterton's comments on women in "What's Wrong With the World" - incisive stuff. he also deals with voting and working, and expresses a very Orthodox position that requires no special teachings - because the stuff is common sense to us! It's an aside, but all you have to do is stand in the back of a church during worship and watch prostrations to answer the question - why should women wear long skirts - at least during worship. Little by little (not all at once) these seemingly 'hidebound' traditions begin to make sense.

On pluralism - of course it is a fact, if by it you mean there are many people with many different beliefs around us, and yes, in that context we need to live with them and be charitable. But if you ask, 'how should society be formed? What should we work towards (within the limits of what we can actually accomplish)?", then it IS a philosophy. SHOULD beliefs that contradict our faith be allowed to become law in our society? (Note that a 'yes' answer is basically self-contradictory. If you believe something wrong, and an evil to be opposed, you can't also believe it to be something to be tolerated in the name of diversity, pluralism or multiculturalism.) But many modern Christians prefer to reject the paradosis and forge a new religion - one that is not the faith passed down from the beginning.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Re: Edited Title: The war of modernity vs paradosis

Postby cyranorox » 04 Jul 2009, 06:47

I grew up with pluralism, and on the whole it was salutary. my education did not prevent me from questioning pluralism, nor absolutism - questioning both, for me, was necessary. and pluralism expects to turn out a percent of absolutists, people who take one of the roads available.
for a critique of modernism that does not fall into neo-authoritarianism, conservatism, or the sort of remedies worse than the problem, read Yannaras, perhaps Person and Eros. He has no truck with the external moralism or the tough-love, strong-father, siege mentality common today. Fully and deeply Orthodox, he explains a way of freedom and authenticity in love, that can examine the faults of modernism and of conservative reaction.

re: "our" society - problem is, it's "their" society, too. Should 'they' be forced to live under laws that contradict their beliefs? or should they refrain from making law to suit their views? the "family" has become an idol, partly in the process of defending it against phantom enemies; no, gay marriage does not threaten straight marriage. I see screwtape in the licence to anger, uncharity, malice, and rejection that the current crop of traditional moralists allow themselves. The idea that precious things are under attack [false, because these things are indestructible], and that a culture [that never existed] is under dire threat, make it seem like any tactic against the supposed enemy is justified - the stakes so illusorily high, the urgency so delusively great.
this can play out in as apparently benign an arena as beards and clothes. most people want to be normal: dress in normal gendered clothes, marry the opposite sex, have a kid or two, believe what their parents do. that has not changed, and will not change. What is really up for grabs is the view of, or treatment of, the few who don't follow the given path; who want to dress out of gender, marry the same sex, have no kids [or a great many], or generally find themselves not fitting, and not willing to fit. I, normal in most regards, feel completely safe in allowing such people to find whatever happiness they can, anticipating that they are no greater sinners than many a straight stiff.Nothing bad will happen if we all fail to disapprove.
Apocatastasis Now!
cyranorox
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 274
Joined: Dec 2007
Location: a garret over a moonlit street

Re: Edited Title: Beards

Postby Bluegoat » 04 Jul 2009, 12:37

rusmeister wrote:It's an aside, but all you have to do is stand in the back of a church during worship and watch prostrations to answer the question - why should women wear long skirts - at least during worship. Little by little (not all at once) these seemingly 'hidebound' traditions begin to make sense.



Do only women do prostrations? I may be missing your point, because personally, women's bums don't interest me other than academically, I'd much rather watch the men's. Perhaps they should wear skirts so as to not distract me?
User avatar
Bluegoat
 
Posts: 205
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Nova Scotia

Re: Edited Title: The war of modernity vs paradosis

Postby cyranorox » 05 Jul 2009, 06:51

Rus, you think women ought to wear long skirts? pants are modest enough, and the skirts/pants divide is really no later than about 1400 a.d, - before that, we all wore gowns or very long shirts. for most of history, male and female silhouettes were about the same.

FWIW, I agree that transgender is a delusion - no one is the wrong gender relative to his body - and doctors are criminal in allowing such persons to be cut up or stuffed with hormones in pursuit of their delusive goals. But about 1 in every 10000 or so is born with some intergender structures and some do not know, as adults, that they were carved into one or the other shape as infants.
Apocatastasis Now!
cyranorox
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 274
Joined: Dec 2007
Location: a garret over a moonlit street

PreviousNext

Return to Religion, Science, and Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered members and 1 guest

cron