Doing very well! I like your screen name.

A scop is an Anglo-Saxon poet and harp-player who traveled around and told stories in musical form.

Working on it, haha.

I plan on starting a YouTube channel sometime this year when I get the equipment.

And a good mic, and some editing software.

The computer I have right now is almost literally crap.

Works well enough to type, haha. Sometimes.

@m.miller Self-depricate.

@ThePangburn So I heard the topic of the Town-hall for tonight is the Bible?

> GOD IS DEAD!
@Eduard How will you comfort yourself, the murderer of all murderers? Who will wipe the blood off you? What water is there to clean yourself? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall you invent?

I'm working right now. I hope I can join on Sunday for the Bible talk, but we'll see.

> Oh was it moved to Sunday?
@m.miller Yep

> @The Scop Who...How...What... Many answers to those questions... but god is still dead as it was since eternity...
@Eduard They're all great questions posed by Friedrich Nietzsche over a century ago. I wouldn't expect you to have answers prepared because it's actually impossible to answer any of them to any satisfaction.

Don't worry though, God is not dead. He did die for three days once, but then He rose again. And I think it's happening again.

> @The Scop he sacrificed a weekend for us... and If I would be a christian... I would not make Jesus God... I mean... Christianity is a Monolatric Religion afterwards... but... I see your point... I'm a romanian... I have been bombarded by orthodox stuff... and I'm a former JW... and I just bought Nitzche... lol
@Eduard You are blessed to live in an Orthodox country. Don't blow it.

> I'm willing to potentially accept the existence of a man named Jesus, of whom these "miracles" refer to, but I'm not willing to grant that he defied the laws of physics
@Smoke He did not break the laws of physics from an Orthodox perspective. Rather, He revealed to us what the purpose of death really is. He revealed to us a truth about reality that was corrupted long ago. Death is not natural.

> @The Scop ... ohhh my friend... kind words as any other orthodox... I am blessed to live in UK... by myself... for myself and my family... jesus had nothing to do with it...
@Eduard You'll come around.

@Smoke I'm too busy to go into it right now, but will happily have this conversation another time.

> @The Scop how can an airplane builder look the same to a bird, as of before planes...
@Eduard I'm not sure I understand the question.

> How can we objectively decide between an honest read of the Bible and a dishonest one? Once you start examining metaphor you enter a world of interpretation, which is subjective of course. So how can one understand anything but the literal reading of the Bible as objectively honest?
@Delta That's a great question. As with any text, the Bible must be considered within its context - and I don't just mean the textual or historical context. It must be considered within the context of the culture that reads it. From my Eastern Orthodox perspective, that is within the context of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Church is the body of believers that wrote the Scriptures, edited the Scriptures, canonized the Scriptures, preserved the Scriptures, and is therefore the only body that is capable of accurately interpreting the Scriptures.

@Buddha In Orthodoxy, the "metaphor vs. literal" distinction does not exist. These are modern categories that have no bearing on this ancient text, nor on the Tradition of the Church. Rather, the entirety of Scripture, and all of reality, must be understood through the prism of Christ. This has led the Church to interpret the Old Testament in highly typological, symbolic, and mystical ways. For example, St. Gregory of Nyssa, a 4th-century bishop, wrote an entire commentary on Moses, in which he explains the symbolic significance of the Burning Bush, the Ten Plagues, the wandering in the desert, and so on. So it is just inaccurate to say that "the people who wrote it and those who read it for the majority of its existence took it literally." I'm not really sure what "literally" means - the category certainly would be a strange one for St. Gregory of Nyssa. So questions like, "Did God really create water before the sun?" is completely nonsensical and irrelevant to the text.

> @The Scop Interesting points. I would challenge you on the body of scriptures can only be interpreted by the church. That is why we had the reformation. The accuracy of the scripture can be considered an issue. An honest, literal, and critical read would challenge several issues brought up. Unfortunately, people have to get past the first paragraph and have the curiosity and or will to finish the book. If read from a literary perspective reading there is a story across the bible. Weighing the old testament outside of the new testament detracts from our understanding. In reading the new testament many of the ideas Jesus proposed were elaborated on. Including understanding what Jesus does to the Old Testament law. If anyone can get past the claims and actually pay attention to the story there maybe a different perspective.
@James B If the Church is not the objective light by which you read the Scripture, then what is? Sola Scriptura has led to 30,000+ denominations. There is only one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church never had a reformation. We are not part of that history. And we would say that the Roman Catholic Church began deviating from Holy Tradition within a century after the Great Schism of 1054, with the advent of scholasticism, increasing growth of the papacy and corruption, etc. The Reformation may have been justified, but it was misguided and unfortunately caused even more breakdown within the Western Church. Interestingly, Martin Luther and many of his followers actually considered going East, but for a number of reasons decided against it.

@James B I do completely agree with you on the last part. The Old Testament can only be understood in light of the New Testament. We probably have different views on how to do that and on the relationship between Christ and the Old Law. But we agree on this. You are absolutely right that the story of the Bible cannot be ignored. That should be the primary consideration, not the historical and scientific questions, because frankly, the Bible itself is not interested in those.

> @The Scop The idea that the church is the only means of interpreting scripture, detracts from the responsibility of the individual to wrestle with God. I am not as familiar with Eastern Orthodox. I still believe that having a monopoly on God's word is not beneficial. Just because Eastern Orthodox has not had a schism does not mean it the ideas are correct. Remember a body of God can form when two or more people come together. The church is important, from a habitual perspective. It has to be careful though it does not become this monolith and force God's believers into a blind creed.
@James B No, it does not detract from the responsibility of the individual to wrestle with God. It allows one to move beyond asking what Scripture means and actually applying it to his life - in the application of the Scripture is the real wrestling match. I was very relieved to escape the confusion of Protestantism, from a particular denomination that didn't even know if demons were still active, and enter into the life of the Church, where the Scripture is a guide and not a source of debate. That said, there is room for disagreement in the Orthodox Church. Our structure is not nearly as rigid as the RCC - within the structure is freedom.

Your statement regarding having a monopoly on God's word betrays the Protestant mindset. Without the Church, there would be no Scripture. The Scripture can only exist in the context of the Church. It was written and compiled for the specific reason of being read in the Divine Liturgy.

As for the question of Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy, that would require a long historical explanation. But the ultimate reason I am Orthodox is not because of that, but because it has the ring of Truth. But that's a discussion for another time.

> Perhaps there were those more educated in higher positions and in the Catholic Church who thought of it as metaphor but there’s nothing to suggest the peasantry and surfs who had a hand in writing and spreading it and were led by those espousing it didn’t take it seriously. The Catholic Church I attended as a child STILL suggested to me the some nonsense stories were true.
@Buddha I cannot speak for the modern Catholic Church, but that is just historically inaccurate. And, as I said, "metaphor" is an inaccurate and modern category that does not apply to Scripture.

@James B From what I can tell you like Jordan Peterson. Here are some of the things he's said about Eastern Orthodoxy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G3MsDh2ci8&t=3s

> How is that historically innacurate. Those who first spread the word of Christ were among peasantry. The vast majority of those who followed Christianity throughout Europe up until very recently were among serfdom.
@Buddha The inaccurate part was that the peasantry had a different view than the Fathers. You're projecting modern concepts and categories onto people who lived an inconcievably long time ago.

> @James B I would love to talk about this more another time! You seem to be equating Catholicism with Orthodoxy too much, when in reality the two traditions developed on completely different tracks over an entire millennium. We Orthodox tend to see Roman Catholicism and Protestantism as two sides of the same coin in many ways. I'm sure there's a lot to clear up. But I have to go now, but look forward to our next discussion!

> A lot of the fathers could read and most of the peasants couldn’t they had no choice but to believe what was told to them was in the scripture. And I doubt the fathers told them it wasn’t true.
@Buddha Of course they didn't because they believed it was true. Again, modern categories. "True" does not necessarily mean "historical." And the Fathers certainly believed Christ was historical. Plus, many of the writings we have from the Fathers are actually transcripts of their sermons to the people. So you're wrong in that assumption too. I'm sorry dude, you are just making a lot of jumps and baseless assumptions.

Anway, gotta go.