Where to start, where to start...
First, the Christians. This is what I want from you (I'll give my own in a reply): give me your meaning of what the title Christian truly requires of the people who use it to describe themselves. Tell us what "denomination" you associate yourself with, and why you think Christians should follow the description you've given.
Second, the atheists, agnostics, anti-Christians and "others". What I want from you is the same exact thing, but I want you to tell us why you're personally not one, why you "deconverted", and why you're fighting against the Christianity you described.
If you think you've caught a hidden agenda, you're partly right. I wanted to create this thread in part to help non-Christians to realize what most of them are fighting against.
Please, no single sentence answers, and no personal attacks.
True Christianity
Moderator: Moderators
My personal description of a "True Christian"
Post #2A true Christian is someone who accepts that Jesus died for them, that even though they've sinned, they'll be forgiven and live forever with him. A true Christian is someone who sees God working in their lives at every corner, whether that corner is hiding something that'll make them happy or depressed.
A true Christian is one who goes through life not believing in coincidences, that most everything bad that happens to them is a result of their own sins, and that the only way to get back on the horse is to really repent for what they've done and try their best not to fall back into temptation.
A true Christian is a person who knows sinful temptation is a product of evil. A true Christian is a person who can recognize this and be repelled by that fact alone.
A true Christian takes insults in stride. They know that even though they're called "sheep", they're more free than anyone else they know because they're no longer bound by sinful peer pressure or trying to impress others. The only thing they're concerned with is what God thinks of them.
A true Christian doesn't try to make deals with God. They don't expect God to show himself before they can truly believe, because they already know he's there.
A true Christian is still human. They've just had something activated inside them that others would never be able to understand without experiencing it themselves.
A true Christian is one who goes through life not believing in coincidences, that most everything bad that happens to them is a result of their own sins, and that the only way to get back on the horse is to really repent for what they've done and try their best not to fall back into temptation.
A true Christian is a person who knows sinful temptation is a product of evil. A true Christian is a person who can recognize this and be repelled by that fact alone.
A true Christian takes insults in stride. They know that even though they're called "sheep", they're more free than anyone else they know because they're no longer bound by sinful peer pressure or trying to impress others. The only thing they're concerned with is what God thinks of them.
A true Christian doesn't try to make deals with God. They don't expect God to show himself before they can truly believe, because they already know he's there.
A true Christian is still human. They've just had something activated inside them that others would never be able to understand without experiencing it themselves.
-
Catharsis
Post #3
Christianity is an ascetic faith.
The Golden Age which the worshippers of the 'superstition of progress' await on earth is promised by the Saviour in the life to come, but neither the Latins nor the Protestants want to accept this for the simple reason that (speaking openly) they believe feebly in the resurrection and believe strongly in the happiness of the present life, which, on the contrary, the apostles call a vanishing vapor (James 4:14). This is why the pseudo-Christian West does not want to and cannot understand the negation of this life by Christianity, which commands us to struggle, having put off the old man with his deeds and having put on the new, which is renewed after the image of Him that created him' (Col. 3:9-10).
If we were to follow up all the errors of the West, both those which entered into its teaching of the faith as well as those inherent in its morals ... we would see that they all are rooted in a misunderstanding of Christianity as the podvig of the gradual self-perfection of the individual.
Christianity is an ascetic religion, Christianity is a teaching about the gradual extirpation of the passions, about the means and conditions of the gradual acquisition of virtues; these conditions are internal, consisting of podvig, and given from without, consisting of our dogmatic beliefs and grace-giving sacraments which have only one purpose: to heal human sinfulness and lead us to perfection.
Orthodoxy views Christianity as an eternal foundation of true life and demands that each break himself and his life until such time as it agrees with that norm, but the heterodox looks on the bases of contemporary cultured life as on an unshakable fact, and only in areas of its existing private options does he indicate which of them are most approved from the Christian viewpoint. Orthodoxy demands moral heroism—podvig; heterodoxy considers what elements of Christianity would be suited to us in our current way of life. For the Orthodox, a man called to life after death in which true life will begin, the historically-shaped mechanism of contemporary life is an insignificant illusion, but for the heterodox the teaching about the future life is an elevated, ennobling idea, an idea which helps to arrange our real life here better and better. - Metropolitan Anthony
The true Christian tests himself every day. Daily testing to see whether we have become better or worse, is so essential for us that without it we cannot be called Christians. Constantly and persistently we must take ourselves in hand. Do this: from the morning establish thoughts about the Lord firmly in your mind and then during the whole day resist any deviation from these thoughts. Whatever you are doing, with whomever you are speaking, whether you are going somewhere or sitting, let your mind be with the Lord. You will forget yourself, and stray from this path; but again turn to the Lord and rebuke yourself with sorrow. This is the podvig of spiritual attentiveness. - Theophan the Recluse
Everyone who wants to purify himself of the sins of the whole year during these days must first of all restrain himself from the pleasure of eating. For the pleasure of eating, as the Fathers say, caused all man's evil. Likewise he must take care not to break the fast without great necessity or to look for pleasurable things to eat, or weigh himself down by eating and drinking until he is full.
There are two kinds of gluttony. There is the kind which concerns taste: a man does not want to eat a lot but he wants it to be appetizing. It follows that such a person eats the food that pleases him and is defeated by the pleasure of it. He keeps the food in his mouth, rolling it round and round, and has not the heart to swallow it because he enjoys the taste. This is called fastidiousness (lairmagia). Another man is concerned about satisfying himself. He doesn't ask for fancy food nor does he care especially about whether the taste is nice or not, he only wants to eat and fill his stomach. This is gluttony. I will tell you how it gets this name: margainein means to rage furiously, to be mad; according to the profane, margos is the name given to the man who rages furiously or is mad. When this disease or mania for packing his belly full of food comes upon a man, therefore, it is called gastromargia, the madness of the stomach, whereas lairmargia is the madness of the palate. These must be guarded against and abandoned seriously by the man who desires to be cleansed of his sins. They accord not with the needs of the body, but with its vicious inclinations, and if they are tolerated, they lead a man into sin. As is the case with legitimate marital union and fornication, the practice is the same but the object is different. In the one case, there is copulation in order to raise a family, in the other, to satisfy a desire for pleasure. The same is true with feeding: in one case it is a question of the body's needs and in the other of eating for pleasure. The intention is what makes it a sin. A man eats to satisfy a need when he lays down how much he will take each day and, if what he has determined on overloads him, takes a little less, or if he is not overloaded and his body is weakened, adds a little. And so he estimates exactly his need, and he bases his conclusion not on pleasure but on preserving the strength of his body. And what he takes he receives with prayer, deeming himself unworthy of that comfort and he is not on the look out to see if others, as is likely, because of special need or necessity are given special attention, lest he himself hankers for that comfort or think it a trivial thing for the soul to be at rest.
- St Dorotheos of Gaza
The Golden Age which the worshippers of the 'superstition of progress' await on earth is promised by the Saviour in the life to come, but neither the Latins nor the Protestants want to accept this for the simple reason that (speaking openly) they believe feebly in the resurrection and believe strongly in the happiness of the present life, which, on the contrary, the apostles call a vanishing vapor (James 4:14). This is why the pseudo-Christian West does not want to and cannot understand the negation of this life by Christianity, which commands us to struggle, having put off the old man with his deeds and having put on the new, which is renewed after the image of Him that created him' (Col. 3:9-10).
If we were to follow up all the errors of the West, both those which entered into its teaching of the faith as well as those inherent in its morals ... we would see that they all are rooted in a misunderstanding of Christianity as the podvig of the gradual self-perfection of the individual.
Christianity is an ascetic religion, Christianity is a teaching about the gradual extirpation of the passions, about the means and conditions of the gradual acquisition of virtues; these conditions are internal, consisting of podvig, and given from without, consisting of our dogmatic beliefs and grace-giving sacraments which have only one purpose: to heal human sinfulness and lead us to perfection.
Orthodoxy views Christianity as an eternal foundation of true life and demands that each break himself and his life until such time as it agrees with that norm, but the heterodox looks on the bases of contemporary cultured life as on an unshakable fact, and only in areas of its existing private options does he indicate which of them are most approved from the Christian viewpoint. Orthodoxy demands moral heroism—podvig; heterodoxy considers what elements of Christianity would be suited to us in our current way of life. For the Orthodox, a man called to life after death in which true life will begin, the historically-shaped mechanism of contemporary life is an insignificant illusion, but for the heterodox the teaching about the future life is an elevated, ennobling idea, an idea which helps to arrange our real life here better and better. - Metropolitan Anthony
The true Christian tests himself every day. Daily testing to see whether we have become better or worse, is so essential for us that without it we cannot be called Christians. Constantly and persistently we must take ourselves in hand. Do this: from the morning establish thoughts about the Lord firmly in your mind and then during the whole day resist any deviation from these thoughts. Whatever you are doing, with whomever you are speaking, whether you are going somewhere or sitting, let your mind be with the Lord. You will forget yourself, and stray from this path; but again turn to the Lord and rebuke yourself with sorrow. This is the podvig of spiritual attentiveness. - Theophan the Recluse
Everyone who wants to purify himself of the sins of the whole year during these days must first of all restrain himself from the pleasure of eating. For the pleasure of eating, as the Fathers say, caused all man's evil. Likewise he must take care not to break the fast without great necessity or to look for pleasurable things to eat, or weigh himself down by eating and drinking until he is full.
There are two kinds of gluttony. There is the kind which concerns taste: a man does not want to eat a lot but he wants it to be appetizing. It follows that such a person eats the food that pleases him and is defeated by the pleasure of it. He keeps the food in his mouth, rolling it round and round, and has not the heart to swallow it because he enjoys the taste. This is called fastidiousness (lairmagia). Another man is concerned about satisfying himself. He doesn't ask for fancy food nor does he care especially about whether the taste is nice or not, he only wants to eat and fill his stomach. This is gluttony. I will tell you how it gets this name: margainein means to rage furiously, to be mad; according to the profane, margos is the name given to the man who rages furiously or is mad. When this disease or mania for packing his belly full of food comes upon a man, therefore, it is called gastromargia, the madness of the stomach, whereas lairmargia is the madness of the palate. These must be guarded against and abandoned seriously by the man who desires to be cleansed of his sins. They accord not with the needs of the body, but with its vicious inclinations, and if they are tolerated, they lead a man into sin. As is the case with legitimate marital union and fornication, the practice is the same but the object is different. In the one case, there is copulation in order to raise a family, in the other, to satisfy a desire for pleasure. The same is true with feeding: in one case it is a question of the body's needs and in the other of eating for pleasure. The intention is what makes it a sin. A man eats to satisfy a need when he lays down how much he will take each day and, if what he has determined on overloads him, takes a little less, or if he is not overloaded and his body is weakened, adds a little. And so he estimates exactly his need, and he bases his conclusion not on pleasure but on preserving the strength of his body. And what he takes he receives with prayer, deeming himself unworthy of that comfort and he is not on the look out to see if others, as is likely, because of special need or necessity are given special attention, lest he himself hankers for that comfort or think it a trivial thing for the soul to be at rest.
- St Dorotheos of Gaza
Post #4
Translation, in your own words, please?Catharsis wrote:Christianity is an ascetic faith.
The Golden Age which the worshippers of the 'superstition of progress' await on earth is promised by the Saviour in the life to come, but neither the Latins nor the Protestants want to accept this for the simple reason that (speaking openly) they believe feebly in the resurrection and believe strongly in the happiness of the present life, which, on the contrary, the apostles call a vanishing vapor (James 4:14). This is why the pseudo-Christian West does not want to and cannot understand the negation of this life by Christianity, which commands us to struggle, having put off the old man with his deeds and having put on the new, which is renewed after the image of Him that created him' (Col. 3:9-10).
If we were to follow up all the errors of the West, both those which entered into its teaching of the faith as well as those inherent in its morals ... we would see that they all are rooted in a misunderstanding of Christianity as the podvig of the gradual self-perfection of the individual.
Christianity is an ascetic religion, Christianity is a teaching about the gradual extirpation of the passions, about the means and conditions of the gradual acquisition of virtues; these conditions are internal, consisting of podvig, and given from without, consisting of our dogmatic beliefs and grace-giving sacraments which have only one purpose: to heal human sinfulness and lead us to perfection.
Orthodoxy views Christianity as an eternal foundation of true life and demands that each break himself and his life until such time as it agrees with that norm, but the heterodox looks on the bases of contemporary cultured life as on an unshakable fact, and only in areas of its existing private options does he indicate which of them are most approved from the Christian viewpoint. Orthodoxy demands moral heroism—podvig; heterodoxy considers what elements of Christianity would be suited to us in our current way of life. For the Orthodox, a man called to life after death in which true life will begin, the historically-shaped mechanism of contemporary life is an insignificant illusion, but for the heterodox the teaching about the future life is an elevated, ennobling idea, an idea which helps to arrange our real life here better and better. - Metropolitan Anthony
The true Christian tests himself every day. Daily testing to see whether we have become better or worse, is so essential for us that without it we cannot be called Christians. Constantly and persistently we must take ourselves in hand. Do this: from the morning establish thoughts about the Lord firmly in your mind and then during the whole day resist any deviation from these thoughts. Whatever you are doing, with whomever you are speaking, whether you are going somewhere or sitting, let your mind be with the Lord. You will forget yourself, and stray from this path; but again turn to the Lord and rebuke yourself with sorrow. This is the podvig of spiritual attentiveness. - Theophan the Recluse
Everyone who wants to purify himself of the sins of the whole year during these days must first of all restrain himself from the pleasure of eating. For the pleasure of eating, as the Fathers say, caused all man's evil. Likewise he must take care not to break the fast without great necessity or to look for pleasurable things to eat, or weigh himself down by eating and drinking until he is full.
There are two kinds of gluttony. There is the kind which concerns taste: a man does not want to eat a lot but he wants it to be appetizing. It follows that such a person eats the food that pleases him and is defeated by the pleasure of it. He keeps the food in his mouth, rolling it round and round, and has not the heart to swallow it because he enjoys the taste. This is called fastidiousness (lairmagia). Another man is concerned about satisfying himself. He doesn't ask for fancy food nor does he care especially about whether the taste is nice or not, he only wants to eat and fill his stomach. This is gluttony. I will tell you how it gets this name: margainein means to rage furiously, to be mad; according to the profane, margos is the name given to the man who rages furiously or is mad. When this disease or mania for packing his belly full of food comes upon a man, therefore, it is called gastromargia, the madness of the stomach, whereas lairmargia is the madness of the palate. These must be guarded against and abandoned seriously by the man who desires to be cleansed of his sins. They accord not with the needs of the body, but with its vicious inclinations, and if they are tolerated, they lead a man into sin. As is the case with legitimate marital union and fornication, the practice is the same but the object is different. In the one case, there is copulation in order to raise a family, in the other, to satisfy a desire for pleasure. The same is true with feeding: in one case it is a question of the body's needs and in the other of eating for pleasure. The intention is what makes it a sin. A man eats to satisfy a need when he lays down how much he will take each day and, if what he has determined on overloads him, takes a little less, or if he is not overloaded and his body is weakened, adds a little. And so he estimates exactly his need, and he bases his conclusion not on pleasure but on preserving the strength of his body. And what he takes he receives with prayer, deeming himself unworthy of that comfort and he is not on the look out to see if others, as is likely, because of special need or necessity are given special attention, lest he himself hankers for that comfort or think it a trivial thing for the soul to be at rest.
- St Dorotheos of Gaza
-
realthinker
- Sage
- Posts: 842
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:57 am
- Location: Tampa, FL
Post #5
I could describe my intent and my beliefs, and if you wish to label that, you can call me anything you wish. That might fit into Christianity, but not likely. I don't understand the consequences of such labeling though.
Last edited by realthinker on Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If all the ignorance in the world passed a second ago, what would you say? Who would you obey?
Post #6
Well... describe them then. That's what the thread is for.realthinker wrote:I could describe my intent and my beliefs, and if you wish to label that, you can call me anything you wish. That might fit into Christianity, but not likely. I understand the consequences of such labeling though.
-
realthinker
- Sage
- Posts: 842
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:57 am
- Location: Tampa, FL
Post #7
Regardless of how it came about, the Universe operates by a strict set of natural effects. It is consistent and impersonal. Man and mankind is subject to those effects without discrimination. We are no more nor no less favored than any other subject to which you wish to compare us. We are but another example of the diversity of existence.chibiq wrote:Well... describe them then. That's what the thread is for.realthinker wrote:I could describe my intent and my beliefs, and if you wish to label that, you can call me anything you wish. That might fit into Christianity, but not likely. I understand the consequences of such labeling though.
To suggest that Mankind is more significant than anything else, as the Bible does so blatantly, is to ignore the precarious conditions in which we exist. There is but one planet in all the Universe that we understand to be habitable for us. Realistically we live within a window of about 50 degrees of temperature. It's so precarious that even the slight tilt of Earth's axis of rotation changes our viability as a species.
Beyond the simple facts of our local environment, consider the continual threat from objects within the solar system. We know that Earth is routinely struck by objects from outside the atmosphere. We're fortunate that they are too small to be noticed most of the time. We know also that there is a non-negligible probability that a devastating impact will occur, with the potential to make Earth uninhabitable once again.
In the face of those facts and others of the same magnitude and nature, how does Man justify it's self-proclaimed significance? I believe it stems mostly from the fact that there is no one else to argue otherwise. We're free to ignore the facts and proclaim ourselves the masters of all God has given.
Sorry, but I cannot grant religion it's right to claim that it knows God's design, which always points to Man's significance over all else. It flies in the face of the facts of Man's insignificance with respect to everything else in the Universe. We don't even know what the Universe holds, having never been beyond our own planet's gravitational effect. We're too ignorant to even suggest the things that religion claims to know.
With that as the basis for my belief, I have to find out why the idea of God and the practice of religion is so universal, if diverse. I don't argue whether Christianity is genuine or whether God exists. I try to find out why it's here. What purpose does it serve? Why is it important to an individual,and why is it found as part of every society? And I believe I'm finding some answers for those questions.
My intent is not to disprove anything in particular or to abolish anything. It's to put mankind and its social structure into it's proper place alongside everything else in the Universe. I want to see it without prejudice. That, in my mind, is the ultimate expression of respect to the creator, should there be one. I want to know the real truth, as it was intended, as it was laid down and as it has occurred. All the truth I've been offered from religion is the truth with respect to Man, and that's not enough.
For what its worth, while I believe religion and the idea of God to be entirely false, I believe they are beneficial and have been vital to the evolution of our society. I'm not sure that society could continue to exist without it. There are aspects of God and religion that make humans successful as a species. We may, as the Earth becomes one connected social structure, be outgrowing that effect. I'm not sure what might replace it though.
I'm happy to elaborate on some of the ideas I've hinted at here, but to do so here would mean putting things into chapters.
If all the ignorance in the world passed a second ago, what would you say? Who would you obey?
-
Catharsis
Post #8
>>>Translation, in your own words, please?<<<
Hi chibig, I guess I should explain.
To answer the question: Do you consider yourself a "True Christian"? - I have to answer a big NO. I am very far from the 'True Christian' ideal.
Living a life as a 'True Christian' involves ascetic struggles and labors (ie. taking up one's cross). This requires sacrificing and crucifying yourself (ie. your will, 'wants', 'needs'), for the sake of others and their love. A True Christian is not a person who necessarily believes, intellectually, a certain set of dogmas or doctrines. It is meaningless unless put into practice.
By definition, this fierce ascetic struggle means pursuit of holiness. In short, it is purification and extirpation of passions and desires (ie. gluttony, lust, avarice, etc). Fasting, prayers, liturgies, etc. are all methods to strive towards this, and all have their meanings and reasons. This spiritual struggle necessarily means totally humbling ourselves. According to Orthodox spirituality, if we do not humble ourselves voluntarily, the world and life's circumstances will humble us sooner or later.
More can be said, but for now I leave you with this. Feel free to ask.
One of the main characteristics of these blessed spiritual warriors was their strictness in keeping their rule of life. We could see this also in our own Elder, and he demanded the same of us. He told us that the beginning of acquiring character and personhood lies in insistence on following an ordered and systematic way of life. By making the decision to maintain an invariable regime, man acquires resolve and bravery, something very important and essential in our life since our contest is a struggle and, indeed, a fierce one....No other human factor is such an aid to success as our firm and steady resolve and a carefully worked-out regime....It is incontrovertible proof that regulation in life is the main factor in spiritual progress. —From Elder Joseph the Hesychast, by Elder Joseph of Vatopedi, pp. 174-177.
Hi chibig, I guess I should explain.
To answer the question: Do you consider yourself a "True Christian"? - I have to answer a big NO. I am very far from the 'True Christian' ideal.
Living a life as a 'True Christian' involves ascetic struggles and labors (ie. taking up one's cross). This requires sacrificing and crucifying yourself (ie. your will, 'wants', 'needs'), for the sake of others and their love. A True Christian is not a person who necessarily believes, intellectually, a certain set of dogmas or doctrines. It is meaningless unless put into practice.
By definition, this fierce ascetic struggle means pursuit of holiness. In short, it is purification and extirpation of passions and desires (ie. gluttony, lust, avarice, etc). Fasting, prayers, liturgies, etc. are all methods to strive towards this, and all have their meanings and reasons. This spiritual struggle necessarily means totally humbling ourselves. According to Orthodox spirituality, if we do not humble ourselves voluntarily, the world and life's circumstances will humble us sooner or later.
More can be said, but for now I leave you with this. Feel free to ask.
One of the main characteristics of these blessed spiritual warriors was their strictness in keeping their rule of life. We could see this also in our own Elder, and he demanded the same of us. He told us that the beginning of acquiring character and personhood lies in insistence on following an ordered and systematic way of life. By making the decision to maintain an invariable regime, man acquires resolve and bravery, something very important and essential in our life since our contest is a struggle and, indeed, a fierce one....No other human factor is such an aid to success as our firm and steady resolve and a carefully worked-out regime....It is incontrovertible proof that regulation in life is the main factor in spiritual progress. —From Elder Joseph the Hesychast, by Elder Joseph of Vatopedi, pp. 174-177.
-
Catharsis
Post #9
realthinker, you ask valid questions. I'll try to answer some.
>>>Sorry, but I cannot grant religion it's right to claim that it knows God's design, which always points to Man's significance over all else. It flies in the face of the facts of Man's insignificance with respect to everything else in the Universe. We don't even know what the Universe holds, having never been beyond our own planet's gravitational effect. We're too ignorant to even suggest the things that religion claims to know.<<<
I'll be quite short.
Exploration of Universe, technological progress and scientific discoveries, etc. do not provide meaning in life and perfection of man. The perfection of man does not consist in that which assimilates him to the whole creation (by exploring the Universe, etc.), but in that which distinguishes him from the created order and assimilates him to his Creator.
I can elaborate on this if you wish.
PS: If you look at all the discoveries and technological progress of the 20th century, one could easily say that we are more 'advanced' than our 'backward' ancestors from the 19th century. But can we say with confidence that we have found our purpose or meaning, or at least say we're clearly striving towards that goal?
>>>Sorry, but I cannot grant religion it's right to claim that it knows God's design, which always points to Man's significance over all else. It flies in the face of the facts of Man's insignificance with respect to everything else in the Universe. We don't even know what the Universe holds, having never been beyond our own planet's gravitational effect. We're too ignorant to even suggest the things that religion claims to know.<<<
I'll be quite short.
Exploration of Universe, technological progress and scientific discoveries, etc. do not provide meaning in life and perfection of man. The perfection of man does not consist in that which assimilates him to the whole creation (by exploring the Universe, etc.), but in that which distinguishes him from the created order and assimilates him to his Creator.
I can elaborate on this if you wish.
PS: If you look at all the discoveries and technological progress of the 20th century, one could easily say that we are more 'advanced' than our 'backward' ancestors from the 19th century. But can we say with confidence that we have found our purpose or meaning, or at least say we're clearly striving towards that goal?
-
realthinker
- Sage
- Posts: 842
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:57 am
- Location: Tampa, FL
Post #10
Technology and progress are, indeed, not significant. They are facts. There is no measuring their worth because we cannot value anything else to which we'd compare them, except within the ego of Man. That, in my opinion, is unreliable and any statement we might make is insignificant. Without another perspective, we're celebrating ourselves, and we've no basis for that. It's meaningless.Catharsis wrote:realthinker, you ask valid questions. I'll try to answer some.
>>>Sorry, but I cannot grant religion it's right to claim that it knows God's design, which always points to Man's significance over all else. It flies in the face of the facts of Man's insignificance with respect to everything else in the Universe. We don't even know what the Universe holds, having never been beyond our own planet's gravitational effect. We're too ignorant to even suggest the things that religion claims to know.<<<
I'll be quite short.
Exploration of Universe, technological progress and scientific discoveries, etc. do not provide meaning in life and perfection of man. The perfection of man does not consist in that which assimilates him to the whole creation (by exploring the Universe, etc.), but in that which distinguishes him from the created order and assimilates him to his Creator.
I have no concept of the "perfection of man" and no appreciation of how that concept factors into any line of thinking. That seems to me to be an entirely narcissistic notion. Why is Man entitled to any more perfection than a mouse? Or a rock? Or anything else? Do those things have an opportunity to appreciate themselves and decide their degree of perfection? How would you gauge that assessment against Man's? What is imperfect about Man, from any point of view except Man's? Once again, with that simple idea you're making Man more significant than anything else in the Universe. You're setting Man to be the judge of everything and its perfection. We, as a race, are too ignorant for that.
Likewise, the "meaning of life" is a selfish notion that continues to beg the question of Man's significance in the face of everything else. Life is a fact. Man is a fact. Just like anything else in the Universe, Man exists. Why should we expect any more meaning than anything else? What, beyond Man's sense of self and recognition of cause and effect, suggests there is any meaning ? Why do those facts entitle Man to anything?
I can elaborate on this if you wish.
PS: If you look at all the discoveries and technological progress of the 20th century, one could easily say that we are more 'advanced' than our 'backward' ancestors from the 19th century. But can we say with confidence that we have found our purpose or meaning, or at least say we're clearly striving towards that goal?
If all the ignorance in the world passed a second ago, what would you say? Who would you obey?
