Thanks, Steven. Atheism and faith are both ideological/philosophical/subjective stances in regard to reality and our knowledge of it. The real discussion is about scientific and theological views of reality, not atheism and theology. In an older book chapter, I attempted to clarify this matter. Here it is: www.academia.edu/43717810/One_Description_Multiple_Interpretations_Suggesting_a_Way_Out_of_the_Current_Impasse D.

@@aiocs I will read this chapter. Quite right, they are subjective stances in regard to reality are how we come to know it, if I am restating your response accurately. My exploration here is on the nature of the datum gathered by the theologian and scientist. The Orthodox theologian, at least some such as V. Lossky, et al. see theology related mystical experience. Belief in God and statements we make about God, at least the knowledge of reality, especially mystical experience, may be experienced within, "The Kingdom of God is within you." Reliance on inner experience, a part of theology, require us to disregard assumptions and ideas about God (apophatic), and seem to require us to "lean into" the experience of God. The theologian uses a different microscope. These experiences seem to have much more subjective experiences as their datum that the datum that are gathered from nature (cells, earth, outer space) are much more physical facts, who use an entirely different microscope. Although some efforts to describe, categorize, and interpreting natural phenomena, the leap one makes to gather an experience of the ineffable God seems to be a much bigger one. So this long winded point is that I think the data that informs the subjective stance is more objective on the side of the scientist. In another way, the theologian sees not only nature, but what is behind it. The scientist analyzes nature--even if they are challenged to describe things like dark matter. They have equations for it. What is the equation for God? Perhaps this is not the thrust of the discussion, about scientific and theological views of reality. I think your paper implies quite well the problem of epistemological fallacies if one makes statements about the other with differing data. Please forgive me if I digress too far afield from your discussion!

@@Stevepsych22 Thanks, Steven. I wouldn't put it quite that way. The scientific method is objectivist; it makes no allowance for subjective views, in principle. The fact of the matter is that subjectivity is impossible to suppress, hence the different scientific interpretations of the same data. But this has nothing to do with atheism, which is an entirely subjective conviction, even though many atheist scientists claim that it is the science that justifies their conviction. In turn, theology does not in principle expel the subject; theology is a divine-human undertaking, it's synergy, it is a matter of convergence between the divine self-disclosure and human response. Apophatic theology is a necessary corrective, made so, namely, necessary, by the subjective dimension of theology. It is a reminder that our views, concepts, and terms mean nothing when it comes to divine reality; they are, at best, pointers to that reality. The matter of mystical theology, yes, that's something of utmost importance, for it draws on the theologian's direct experience with God; it's part of the method, not a matter of articulating the outcomes of the divine experience (this aspect is horribly misinterpreted by many contemporary Orthodox, who believe that mystical theology is a form of discourse, not a form of experience). Doru, protopresbyter.

@@revdcostache I don't disagree with what you have said here and I think that you thinking is quite sound about these. I think that my remarks are outside the scope of this conversation you are having with Geraint. My impertinence is based in my discipline. Socail Learning and metapsychology studies influence and their possible impact on values, beliefs, etc. I think they would predict that out 100 scientists who study nature, a much greater number than not would likely lean atheist because of its objectivist stance. I believe I've already explained why above. This is also notwithstanding those scientists who are filled with wonder and cannot help but believe in God. But to return to your arguments. Atheism vs. Theology is not the conversation, but the rich intellectual perspectives that each discipline brings to this dialogue. My remarks have no real place in this dialogue, but some disciplines think about influences in these ways.

Steven, I don't see why your points would be inapplicable here. We seem to refer to the same issues in different words, but we don't speak of different issues... I agree with you: After studying theology formally for fourteen years and teaching it in tertiary settings for thirty years this year, my views could be quite sound ;-) Doru, protopresbyter

Yep, what a journey... From "Fr Doru" to "Doru"... But, nope, I don't call anybody "Maximos"; only the pretentious do. If he's Maximos, then Athanasius is Athanasios, Basil is Basileios, Gregory is Gregorios etc. Anyway, what a time for the anti-Christ to pop up and for "Christians" to worship him as "saviour"... Doru, p.

Maximos the Confessor?

That was from yesterday's Prayer app

Merry Christmas!

The Lord was, is, and will ever be in the midst of his disciples. I can't answer to that; nevertheless, welcome! We have a friend who prays with us regularly, even though he lives in California. This was not the best hour for him though. In Christ, Doru, p.

Thanks, Martyn. We did what we could, scratching the surface of a truly deep ocean. I think it was Saint Isaac the Assyrian who said something along the lines of, "Stop blaspheming against God's love by talking of God's justice," or something to that effect. I don't remember where I found this, because I never read Saint Isaac's spiritual writings more than superficially. And, he continued, "If God were just, none of us would be here," or some such thing. In my recent talk on Assyrian christology, I quoted Saint Aprem/Ephrem the Assyrian, saying, “O you who shoot your arrows at the great mountain: do not think they reach it!” This is what I believe, that we can't do more than scratch the surface. But of one thing I can assure you: I don't for a moment believe in the evil deity of crime and punishment they idolise instead of God in many "Christian" (they don't deserve this name) corners. "Legalistic" is but a failure to meet the living God, whom the Byzantines call φιλάνθρωοπος, "the compassionate one." Doru, p.

@ Thanks Doru, Your presentation to the Nisibis Symposium revealed to me the minefield for a seeker of Truth. The disunity of Christianity is a Scandal. Of course you sum it up well by acknowledging we are all human and subject to error. It seems that this Symposium is moving in the direction of clarifying issues with long historic tails and for this we should be grateful. For me it highlights the importance of pastoral support and clarity in dissecting the scriptures. This mornings discussion led to a confirmation of an issue that has plagued me since a child. Thank you. Will there be other presentations available on You tube?

@@martynrobinson5399 Martyn, yes, the organisers are in the process of editing the full video recording of the symposium. Once it's made available, I shall add the link here and elsewhere. D.

This is a moving encouragement on your part, dear Martyn, it means a lot to me; thank you. D.

Cheers, Martyn, this is what these conversations are supposed to elicit: further thought. I'm happy to serve. Doru

Noted, and many thanks! Doru

Much obliged! D.

Thanks, Martyn, feel free to continue engaging these conversations. D.

Thank you, Martyn. All for God's people! D.

Cheers, Matt, I'm glad you enjoyed it. D.

Doesn't seem to be what the two interlocutors say. So, whence your sweeping assessment of "every religious person"? BTW, Costache doesn't even use the word "religion" for the Christian faith. So, better check before you judge.

Cheers, Steve, it was at a bad time for you... D.

@@aiocs It's true, Doru.

Thank you very much, Martyn-Thomas, for this encouragement and for sharing about your journey. And, yes, as you noticed, Christ's disciples are not interested in the spats, as you aptly refer to the senseless bickering of the grammarians and the likes; Christ's disciples are interested in the Gospel that unites all in love, light, and life.

Thanks, my friend, I appreciate it. All for the greater good.

Thanks for your interest, my friend.

Fellowship across time and space :-) Have a good week, Steve! Doru

Aptly said, dear Steven, safe travels!

@@revdcostache Thank you! I am home and will see you all tomorrow for Liturgy.

I hope that you and Jenny are better... D.

Cheers, Matt. It's been a good discussion, I agree. And, yes, it is important to get real about things, to escape the utopian nightmares of "religion," including whatever has become of our Orthodox Christianity.

You are in our hearts even when you can't join us. But so are all of us, I hope, given the circumstances of our prayer together... I hope that the conference went well.

@@revdcostache Thank you! And I receive this news joyously while wanting to know each one of you is cherished in my "peering into" the recording. I look forward to our next time together.

Cheers, Steve, I hope that things go well. Doru, p.

Much obliged, Martyn, thank you for your interest. I do my best to make sense of the ongoing catechism of the liturgical year. The fact that the calendarists don't get the symmetry of 5 pre-Lenten Sundays and 5 Lenten Sundays shows how much we have forgotten... Playing stuff by ear in the name of Orthodox Christianity...

Greetings, Martyn. Nothing is certain. There are hints that our Saint Gregory the Theologian (wrongly called by scholars "Gregory of Nazianzus"), during his brief tenure as archbishop of Constantinople (towards the end of the fourth century), attempted to organise the readings, helped, rumours have it, by his onetime deacon, Evagrius Ponticus. This does not surprise me, as both proved to possess deep scriptural insight and a contemplative mind. One thing seems to be certain, that is, Gregory delivered distinct sermons for Christmas (December 380) and Theophany/Epiphany (January 381), being the first Eastern hierarch to do so (until him, the two days were celebrated distinctly by Rome, but not in the East). This shows his interest in calendar/liturgical reform, serving as an indirect proof of his attempts at systematising the lectionary. What is more certain is that the liturgical reforms of ninth century, spearheaded by the monks of Stoudion Monastery in Constantinople, included the lectionary. The celebration of Sunday of Orthodoxy (the first lenten Sunday) was introduced in that century. It is in that century that the Byzantines produced what is variously known as the "imperial" or the "patriarchal" text of the New Testament, which still is the preferred text of the Orthodox for liturgical purposes (while at Saint Gregory's we use the anglicised version of NRSV, when something smells too fishy I turn to the Greek text and retranslate). Further liturgical reforms took place in the thirteenth and the fourteenth century, the latter e.g. adding Saint Gregory Palamas as a Lenten figure for contemplation (the second lenten Sunday). Later liturgical reforms fiddled with the lectionary produced by the Byzantines, but have not been of the essence. Most times, especially in the last century or so, these interventions proved to be nationalistically inspired and completely irrelevant to the liturgical mystagogy ("initiation into mysteries") of the Byzantine lectionary. BTW, for the purposes of our mission, I try to avoid as much as possible the recent tweaks, hence certain variations between the readings we contemplate at Saint Gregory's and what the official lectionaries prescribe. Much research is needed (and this is one of the reasons why I got into the exploration of the Codex Angus at the University of Sydney Library), but I am afraid that the ecclesiastical administrators (in charge of the lectionary on behalf of the respective national synods) are happy to perpetuate the current pseudomorphoses and nothing is going to change officially. Why would anyone get rid of such momentous achievements as the Sunday of Athonite Saints/Romanian Saints/Russian Saints etc., currently celebrated instead of the Second Sunday after Pentecost, which seal the deal of Orthodoxy's contemporary disunity? Don't get me wrong; I do not say that the lectionary is immutable; I merely say that many modern changes have no ecclesial significance, serving political/national agendas.

Merry Christmas, Steven, all the best to you and yours! I look forward to praying again together whenever possible. Doru, p.

Many thanks, Steven. Merry Christmas! We keep you and yours in our prayers. We mentioned those who usually pray with us and have been absent, and we also thought about those in places of great turmoil and suffering. May Christmas bring light, peace, and comfort to all!

Thanks, my brother. We missed you, but it's good to know that you keep us in your prayers 🙂

Many thanks, friend. Also, thank you for commenting on other videos on this channel. Ha, you learn about us from the best; I mean from Father Andrew. Wagdy and I try to show that the two major Orthodox traditions, Eastern and Oriental, are not as far apart as the diehards would have us believe. BTW, Wagdy is not a member of the clergy, but that's fine, we'll forgive him ;-)

Many thanks! Indeed. One of a kind. I was fortunate to be hosted (academically) by him during my fellowship in Durham, in 2018, having many opportunities to converse about scholarly and spiritual matters. I keep engaging his contributions in my own research. Ah, and he's an excellent cook (but don't tell anybody ;-) ).

The "misfortune" of not having where to serve turns for the best...

The Lord's name be ever blessed!

אמן אמן סלה! ☦️

Thank you for joining this prayer!

@@aiocs ☦️⚓❤️

Amen. Blessed be He!

There is no evidence that Moses was a mythical figure, much the way there is none to prove that he ever existed. Myth means a story that communicates wisdom lessons. But here is the short answer: Nope. Faith is not about historical proof in the modern, positivist (impoverished, empty, depressing) sense.