| We do not doubt that the positive part of cosmopolitanism " s teaching approaches close to Christianity. It undoubtedly took its appeals for brotherhood, love and mutual help directly from Christianity. These appeals are purely Christian. It is, however, only these Christian ideas which are of value in cosmopolitanism. Cosmopolitanism has, however, added much distorted falsehood and error to this element of truth. Because of this, its teaching has become narrowly one-sided and artificial, and thus not vital. Such errors include all the tenets of cosmopolitanism which speak against feelings of patriotism and the duty of service to the native land, its good estate and safety. One can, in fact, observe that the lives of the verbose preachers of cosmopolitanism are dry and incapable of sincere, compassionate relationships. With foam at the mouth they cry about their love for mankind, but cannot love their neighbor as is necessary. Christianity does not teach this false, one-sided cosmopolitanism. Christ commanded us to have, not an artificial «love for mankind,» but real love for neighbor. For a Christian, such a neighbor is every person in general (therefore, a Christian must love everyone), and in particular, each person with whom he meets in daily life. Christian life is manifested most of all precisely in these personal encounters, in living mutual intercourse, mutual support and compassion. How distant from this is the one-sided teaching, of cosmopolitanism with its appeals for an artificial «love for mankind;» a love which is removed from the realities of life. As a child, a person " s neighbors, are his parents, brothers, sisters, and other relatives. At this time, it is sufficient if one is a good, loving, responsive and dedicated member of the family. The child does not yet have vital relationships with those outside the family. Gradually growing up through childhood and adolescent years, one develops personal, vital relationships with many other people and they become «onés own.» Good upbringing must teach the child to treat these new «neighbors» in a Christian manner – to be friendly, of good will, to have a sincere readiness to help, and to render as much service as possible. As a person matures, his horizons expand and every human being becomes onés «neighbor,» no matter to what nation or race they may belong. |
| Arhiva Alocuiunea Preafericitului Patriarh Chiril la întâlnirea cu colectivul metropolitanului din Moscova 1 martie 2014 18:16 La 1 martie 2014 Preafericitul Patriarh al Moscovei i al întregii Rusii Chiril a vizitat Direcia metropolitanului din Moscova. În sala de festiviti a avut loc întâlnirea Sanctitii Sale cu colectivul metropolitanului. Stimate Ivan Sergheevici! Dragi participani la întâlnire! Peste o or a vrea s m adresez colectivului metropolitanului din Moscova care numr multe mii de angajai. Voi activai într-un loc special. Acel mediu ambiant în care v gsii este creat doar de mâinile omului. Este rodul muncii oamenilor, al gândului omenesc, al eforturilor umane. Este un mediu întru totul artificial. Pe de o parte, fiecare persoan, care viziteaz metropolitanul, nu poate s nu dea dreptate eforturilor eroice ale generailor premergtoare, care în anii cei mai grei, inclusiv din punctul de vedere economic, au creat aceast minune, care a trezit admiraia întregii lumi muli ani la rând. Dar, pe de alt parte, amintindu-ne de acele file eroice ale istoriei, noi nu putem s nu spunem i despre faptul c munca în metropolitan este un fel de eroism, doar acest mediu ambiant artificial nu este firesc omului. Majoritatea dintre noi lucreaz în încperi, dar omul care lucreaz într-o încpere are un contact viu cu mediul ambiant, exist posibilitatea de a iei, de a privi prin fereastr, de a vedea lumea lui Dumnezeu. Pe când aceia care lucreaz în metropolitan, trudesc într-un mediu deosebit, artificial, care este neorganic pentru om. Iar aceasta semnific o solicitare deosebit asupra strii interioare a omului, asupra psihicii lui, asupra sntii lui, iar acesta cere de la oameni, care activeaz într-un astfel de mediu, caliti cu totul speciale. Îns acest mediu nu este creat pentru experimente. Acest mediu este creat pentru a ajuta oamenilor, deoarece un megapolis contemporan nu o poate scoate la capt fr o astfel de modalitate de deplasare. Dac vom spune despre acele milioane i milioane de oameni, care în fiecare zi sunt transportate de metropolitanul din Moscova, va deveni foarte clar – este un loc, fr de care nu poate exista Moscova ca un ora unitar de proporii, ca o capital a arii noastre, ca un centru cultural, economic i politic. |
| About Pages Проекты «Правмира» Raising Orthodox Children to Orthodox Adulthood The Daily Website on How to be an Orthodox Christian Today Twitter Telegram Parler RSS Donate Navigation Now people are buying up antibiotics. Why could this be a disaster? Source: Pravmir (Russian) Aleksander Panchin, a biologist, and Aleksander Melnikov, a therapist, speak about this. Natalia Nekhlebova 17 November 2020 More than 90% of COVID-19 patients take antibiotics, not only in hospitals, but also on an outpatient basis, according to Roman Kozlov, chief microbiologist and antimicrobial resistance specialist at the Russian Ministry of Health, an associate member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. This results in resistance of bacteria to medications. Because of it, people may encounter infections that they would not be able to overcome. Biologist Aleksander Panchin and therapist Aleksander Melnikov told Pravmir why antibiotics should not be taken “just in case” and why they are dangerous. Aleksander Panchin, a Russian biologist, popularizer of science, explains why resistance to antibiotics is horrible and debunks myths about them. — Why is it so horrible that many people take antibiotics now? What is resistance? Will they stop helping me personally? Aleksander Panchin — A bacteria and not a person can have resistance to antibiotics. Even before you start taking an antibiotic, your body may have bacteria that are more or less resistant to this antibiotic. Where does resistance come from? Natural resistance to different antibiotics occurs to different degrees in different bacteria. When we take antibiotics in large numbers without thinking, we conduct artificial selection in favor of those varieties of bacteria that are more resistant. Some mutations that affect resistance, some variations of it are present in the bacterial population by definition. But the longer we subject them to such artificial selection, the easier new mutations become permanent. The more frequently and massively we use antibiotics, the more resistant bacteria there will be, and the less effective antibiotics will be in the future. |
| Met. Hilarion calls for adopting rather than resorting to IVF Moscow, May 22, 2017 Photo: userscontent2.emaze.com The head of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) has spoken out against artificial insemination and surrogacy on a recent TV interview, encouraging instead to adopt children from orphanages, reports Interfax-Religion . “We should not resort to these experiments. Bear your children, and if you cannot have your own, then adopt a son or daughter,” the metropolitan said on the program “The Church and the World” on the Russia-24 channel. He noted that the Church does not accept surrogate motherhood, because it is “an artificial incursion into that sphere which is sacred.” “If for some reason a couple cannot have children, then the Church knows only one means of solving this problem—to adopt children; very many couples have found their happiness in adopting children,” the prelate said, noting several cases known to him of couples who had difficulty conceiving, who adopted children and subsequently were able to conceive. The Church forbids non-traditional forms of conception, the metropolitan explained, not to place limitations upon people, but “that people would not end up in some disastrous state that they have created for themselves.” Met. Hilarion reminded the audience that there can be very many side-effects from the IVF process: “It is unknown how the child will be born—healthy or sick; is it necessary to destroy other embryos for this sake of this one child?” This issue presents a whole series of ethical problems that cannot be solved by medical intervention, the metropolitan believes. Fr. Paul Gumerov, who has offered numerous books on marriage and family life, speaks to the destruction of embryos in IVF, explaining what happens when several fertilized eggs are implanted in a woman at one time: And now let us imagine that all the embryos transferred to the uterus begin to develop. Several of them were implanted so that at least a part of them might develop. What happens if all begin to develop? The “extra”, or “undesirable” embryos are “reduced”, that is, they are removed surgically—in other words, an abortion is performed. Thus IVF involves destroying fertilized embryos that are already living babies with souls. In the end a person who resorts to IVF resorts to an abortion! |
| About Pages Проекты «Правмира» Raising Orthodox Children to Orthodox Adulthood The Daily Website on How to be an Orthodox Christian Today Twitter Telegram Parler RSS Donate Navigation Conversion to Christ Inside and Outside the Church Have you ever noticed that Americans tend to compartmentalize things? From our own identity to our moral convictions, we tend to live an internally and spiritually divided existence. A perceived ‘cure’ for this condition, which promotes legalism and an artificial stability, is to pick the ‘right’ box and stuff ourselves (and everyone around us) into it. Archpriest Thaddaeus Hardenbrook 09 October 2010 Source: The Grapevine: A Newsletter of St. Lawrence Orthodox Church, October 8, 2010 Have you ever noticed that Americans tend to compartmentalize things? From our own identity to our moral convictions, we tend to live an internally and spiritually divided existence. A perceived ‘cure’ for this condition, which promotes legalism and an artificial stability, is to pick the ‘right’ box and stuff ourselves (and everyone around us) into it. Many times we do both simultaneously and hypocritically, being fractured and relativistic in our approach to some areas while being completely rigid in others. Take, for example, our cultural inheritance regarding conversion to Christianity. Conversion to Christ has, for a long time now in America, been compartmentalized to a single moment in time (‘asking Jesus into one’s heart’) that is either sincere and permanent (‘once saved, always saved’) or insincere and of no real spiritual effect. Yet how does one prove the authenticity of that exclusive moment? By a personal and continuous interpretation (and reinterpretation) of Scripture. In this American tradition, conversion is completely contained and static, but one’s opinion about Christ and His teaching can change every day. In fact, the constant shifting of one’s opinion about Christ and Scripture is accepted as a sign of spiritual health and ‘active faith.’ Rooted in convictions that are surprisingly similar to authentic paganism, this view encourages people to conform their faith to themselves rather than the self being conformed to the faith. In the end, there are so many different faiths and Christs that, technically, we’re back to pantheism. |
| Thus, when we speak of the crisis of culture, we usually imply a dis-integration in one of these two different, if related, systems, or rather in both of them. It may happen that some of the accepted or alleged values are discredited and compromised, i.e. cease to function and no longer appeal to men. Or, again, it happens sometimes that «civilized man» themselves degenerate or even disappear altogether, that cultural habits become unstable, and men lose interest in or concern for these habits, or are simply tired of them. Then an urge for «primitivism» may emerge, if still within the framework of a lingering civilization. A civilization declines when that creative impulse which originally brought it into existence loses its power and spontaneity. Then the question arises, whether «culture» is relevant to the fulfilment of man’s personality, or is no more than an external garb which may be needed on occasions, but which does not organically belong to the essence of human existence. It obviously does not belong to human nature, and we normally clearly distinguish between «nature» and «culture,» implying that «culture» is man’s «artificial» creation which he superimposes on «nature,» although it seems that in fact we do not know human nature apart from culture, from some kind of culture at least. It may be contended that «culture» is not actually «artificial,» that it is rather an extension of human nature, an extension by which human nature achieves its maturity and completion, so that an «under-cultural» existence is in fact a «sub-human» mode of existence. Is it not true that a «civilized» man is more human than a «primitive» or «natural» man? It is precisely at this point that our major difficulty sets in. It may be perfectly true, as I personally believe is the case, that our contemporary culture or civilization is «on trial.» But should Christians, as Christians, be concerned with this cultural crisis at all? If it is true, as we have just admitted, that the collapse or decline of culture is rooted in the loss of faith, in an «apostasy» or «retreat,» should not Christians be concerned, primarily if not exclusively, with the reconstruction of belief or a reconversion of the world, and not with the salvaging of a sinking civilization? If we are really passing in our days an «apocalyptic» test, should we not concentrate all our efforts on Evangelism, on the proclamation of the Gospel to an oblivious generation, on the preaching of penitence and conversion? The main question seems to be, whether the crisis can be resolved if we simply oppose to an outworn and disrupted civilization a new one, or whether, in order to overcome the crisis, we must go beyond civilization, to the very roots of human existence. |
| Human interactions in the modern setting have been framed within the understanding of “rights.” The language of rights assumes that human beings exist as a set of self-interested agents with free-will. It also assumes that one person’s rights begin where those of another ends. The world of competition and balance has also given rise to the language of oppression and liberation. Though it is possible to enlarge or alter that world by expanding individual demands to variously defined groups (common interest, common identity), nevertheless, in every case the result is the same assumption that we exist as a set of self-interested free-wills. The politics of identity remains the politics of individualism, with nothing more than various make-shift versions of an individual. Collective nouns (men, women, minorities, etc.) serve as stand-in’s for individuals. Something is lost. The greatest loss, and the most insurmountable obstacle in the politics of modernity is established by the reality that we do not, in fact, exist as individuals. Human life is not just community (a collection of individuals), it is a communion . No one life exists alone. The needs of the one do not exist apart from the needs of the other. Our lives co-inhere. At its root, the failure of modernity is its account of what it means to be human. It pointedly and persistently ignores the given wisdom of inherited human experience and continues to insist that its model is not only right, but that any amount of technological and artificial interference can be justified in making its solutions work. The result is an increasing alienation of individuals as well as the creation of an abstracted, artificial biology that begins to rival the imagination of Mary Shelley. Against this backdrop of ideological artifice stands the sanity of a growing awareness of nature itself. We see, rather clearly, that unbridled technology and exploitation of the environment yields disastrous results. Questions about non-intervention of genetically modified seed-lines are not only reasonable, they press an important point. Are we engineering our way into a world of unhealthy, even poisonous foods? We conquer disease only to invent un-treatable bacteria. We rightly wonder at our alienation from nature and the natural demands of the human body. |
| Commentary: " The cripple, a man with one amputated leg, may go out on the Sabbath on his wooden leg, an artificial leg, made according to the size of his shin. Such is the decree of Rabbi Meir, who believes that an artificial leg corresponds to footwear, while Rabbi Jose forbids the cripple from going out with his wooden leg on the Sabbath. According to him, it does not correspond to footwear because the cripple stands primarily with his hands on a cane, while the artificial leg is only for appearance " s sake so that his physical handicap would go unnoticed. Thus, the artificial leg on Sabbath is seen as an unnecessary load, and it is prohibited to enter with it. According to the other point of view, Rabbi Jose agrees that the artificial leg equates to footwear, however he is afraid that the man will detach it and will carry over 4 cubits into the public domain, but Rabbi Meir does not have this fear.” I risk fatiguing the reader, but I will introduce one more place from the Talmud to fully portray the spiritual deadness of ritualism. “There are two acts constituting the transfer (of things which are prohibited) on the Sabbath, which are in turn subdivided into four for a man who finds himself inside a private domain ( reshut hayachid ). The two acts are, however, increased to four for a man who finds himself outside in the public domain ( reshut harabim ). How so? For example, a mendicant stands outside (in reshut harabim ) and the master of a house inside (in reshut hayachid ). The mendicant passes his hand into the house (through for example a window) and puts something into the hand of the master (let " s say a basket, so that he might give him a piece of bread), or (another variation) the mendicant reaches out and takes something from the master " s hand (a piece of bread). In these two cases, the mendicant is breaking the law of the Sabbath, but the host is not. Or, if the master of the house (being inside) passes his hand through a window and puts, say, a piece of bread, into the hand of the mendicant, or, having put out his hand, he takes an object (a basket) from the hands of the mendicant, who is standing outside on the street, and brings it into the house, the master of the house would have broken the law of the Sabbath, but not the mendicant. This is the first part of the Mishna, which has demonstrated to us what the “two acts” of transferring objects mean, from the position of one who is inside, and from the position of one who finds himself outside. Carrying out any of these acts on the Sabbath is prohibited " (Tract Sabbath). |
|
|
