Orthodoxy

[chefranden]

I’m taking you at your word Orthodox Christian.

 

Here is the new thread.

 

I know you are not a Calvinist. That would be silly since calvinism is western.

 

I admit that I don't know many details of Orthodoxy.

[Guest Euthyphro]

I’m taking you at your word Orthodox Christian.

 

Here is the new thread.

 

I know you are not a Calvinist.  That would be silly since calvinism is western.

 

I admit that I don't know many details of Orthodoxy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yea dude. Tell us why western christianity is a heresy. Heathen minds want to know.

[Lokmer]

More to the point, many formerly western Christian minds want to know. I must admit that while I was a Christian I had a great affection for Orthodoxy, though I never crossed the line into actually becoming one. I was a neo-Orthodox for several years, but that's a bit of a different animal. Your theological pontifications would be enjoyable and enlightening, even though my problems with Christianity run deeper than the theological divide between east and west.

-Lokmer

[orthodox christian]

Thank you, Chef. Here is my reply to TAP from the other thread, and I will come back later to continue.

 

 

(TAP asked about Orthodox position on the Bible)

 

 

TAP, it's a bit more complicated, and in Orthodoxy we do not have clear-cut answers like "yes" or "no", sometimes there are things in between. And so it is with the Bible: it did not fall off the sky, it was written by people. The people were inspired by God. But the people wrote in certain curcamstances that we today may not have, so we may not understand what they were saying. And, also, they were writing for the people of their time, of their culture, and so they explained things in a way that those people would understand. This especially is about Christ and His disciples. At the beginning of the Gospel of Luke, I believe, he notes that he writes to someone in particular. Did this "skew" his writing? Of cource it did. And so if you read his Gospel from your perspective, you might not understand it because it wasn't intended for you to read it, but for that particular person and the people around him. That is why we do not read the Bible literally, and take it as a whole. And so many of the contradictions that are in the Bible are in fact seeming contradictions because the phrases were said in different curcamstances.

For exapmle, in the Actors school in Europe, in the admissions exam, you need to pronounce a common phrase like "the train has arrived" in 20 different ways. So, depending on the intonation, the meaning changes. With what intonation did Jesus speak? Who knows? The Apostles knew. And they told the others, and the others told the other others, and so on till this day. And Orthodoxy has preserved that original "subtext" of the Bible which you will not get reading it without guidance. That is one big reason, among the others, that I am an Orthodox Christian.

(Actually, it's called the Oral Tradition, but it's all written now by the Early Christians )

[Karl-777]

IMO, to Xtians, "heretics" are members of other Xtian denominations, no matter where they are from. Here are some from the seemingly endless Xtian denominational list: Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Lutheran, Baptist, Assemblies of God/Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Seventh Day Adventist, Reformed Church in America, Methodist, Church of the Nazarene, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormon, Church of Christ-Scientist, Evangelical, Church of God, Christadelphian, Church of God in Christ, Holiness, Moravian, Wesleyan, Missionary, Congregational..and more.

 

Ah, but which one has the "only true" dogma? That matter would eventually be settled by whichever one had the most money, power and statist support (the religionist will typically seek out the statist for assistance in such matters) to enforce/uphold the controlling hierocracy. The Roman Catholic Church has certainly been at the forefront, and continues to move to re-consolidate its former position of world domination. As history has shown us, when the religionist hierocracy operates in concert with the statists (both of whom employ fear tactics in their lust and greed for power and control), the result is unparalleled guilt-mongering, money-grubbing, ignorance, societal misery and barbarism. This was most recently illustrated by the current administration's overtures to the RCC and other religious groups in its Constitutionally illegal "faith-based initiatives", which siphon off tax-payer dollars in support of religious organizations.

 

THOSE CHRISTIAN HERETICS

 

....You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them....

 

Heresy

(cited from- http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm )

 

.......St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas". "The right Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church.....

The rest of the page also deals with matters such as the the Inquisition:

XIII. INTOLERANCE AND CRUELTY

 

The Church's legislation on heresy and heretics is often reproached with cruelty and intolerance. Intolerant it is: in fact its raison d'être is intolerance of doctrines subversive of the faith But such intolerance is essential to all that is, or moves, or lives, for tolerance of destructive elements within the organism amounts to suicide. Heretical sects are subject to the same law: they live or die in the measure they apply or neglect it. The charge of cruelty is also easy to meet. All repressive measures cause suffering or inconvenience of some sort: it is their nature. But they are not therefore cruel. The father who chastises his guilty son is just and may be tender-hearted. Cruelty only comes in where the punishment exceeds the requirements of the case. Opponents say: Precisely; the rigours of the Inquisition violated all humane feelings. We answer: they offend the feelings of later ages in which there is less regard for the purity of faith; but they did not antagonize the feelings of their own time, when heresy was looked on as more malignant than treason. In proof of which it suffices to remark that the inquisitors only renounced on the guilt of the accused and then handed him over to the secular power to be dealt with according to the laws framed by emperors and kings. Medieval people found no fault with the system, in fact heretics had been burned by the populace centuries before the Inquisition became a regular institution. And whenever heretics gained the upper hand, they were never slow in applying the same laws: so the Huguenots in France, the Hussites in Bohemia, the Calvinists in Geneva, the Elizabethan statesmen and the Puritans in England. Toleration came in only when faith went out; lenient measures were resorted to only where the power to apply more severe measures was wanting......

Get the picture, folks?

 

THE "DIVINELY INSPIRED" BIBLE

 

.....And so it is with the Bible: it did not fall off the sky, it was written by people. The people were inspired by God........That is why we do not read the Bible literally, and take it as a whole. And so many of the contradictions that are in the Bible are in fact seeming contradictions because the phrases were said in different curcamstances.....

 

Maybe you would care to explain how "perfect" biblegod could not get the father of Belshazzar correct in Daniel (it was actually Nabodinus), or explain the roughly 10-year gap in between the death of Herod in 4 BCE and the c. 6 CE reign of Qurinius in Luke,

(rendering the gospel story historically impossible) Luke 1:37 - KJV says "For with God nothing shall be impossible." This verse is contradicted by the historical errors. Then there's this one of those "seeming contradictions":

And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

VERSUS

And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

So which is it, dead or alive? Maybe we should do a coin flip to decide.

 

My understanding is that Genesis and Exodus were allegedly written by "Moses". These are a few of the errors and incongruity that comprise the bible. In light of the above, how do you determine what is literally "true" or actual "inspired" text? So you don't believe in a literal god-man named "Jesus" of Nazareth"? (not that there are any extra-biblical corroborations of him, his mother "Mary" or for that matter, verification of the existence of individuals in his "genealogy").

 

To me, only an incongruous text such as the bible could produce the myriad sects of Xtanity, and only a violent text such as the bible and associated derived dogma, could generate the brutality which has been witnessed throughout history and is still evident today in cases such as the India Tracy incident and the other violence around the globe, or the insanity that resulted in the Deanna Laney tragedy and the Mancini child-sacrifice horror.

 

As we know, the "whole" is as good as the sum of its parts......

 

K

[orthodox christian]

Karl, thank you for the input, but I do not want to argue with you and anybody else about the contradictions in the Bible. Anything else but that, because it'll take forever. I just want to put here some of the points that I gathered over the years by reading you guys's "contradiction-opposition" in this forum and others as well.

 

The Bible was written by people, although it is inspired by God. People in the west imagine this to be as if God used the hand of a man and wrote the Bible. God inspired the MIND of a man, not his hand. And how the man expressed things God tought him, it is up to him (however, the way he wrote is also influenced by God). And we deal here with Middle Eastern men that lived thousands of years ago. Did the style of their speech differ from the one Western people use today? Of cource it did. And most of the time those phrases that include "all" and in the other place it turns out to be not "all," are contradictions just due to the manner of speach. People in the Middle East tend to substitute "all" for "many" for a better effect and only in the precise and legalistic West it seems inappropriate. People in those times did not see anything wrong with that.

 

But that is why we have such a big volume of spiritual writing -- if you take it as a whole, it levels out those distinguishing features of the speech of the authors. So, in your example, indeed, many cannot see the face of the Lord. But some can. Jesus explains this: "Pure in the Heart can see God." Pure in the heart can see God, and others can't (this is also tied to the Orhtodox teaching of Hell).

 

Another thing is that what God says, He says for the particular people. And He phrases His message in a way that they can understand and remember better. He also does a lot of things, especially in the Old Testament, for the sole purpose of converting people and turning them back to Him. All the killing and distruction, all the suffering of people in the Old Testament was done so that people would fear God and not do bad things anymore. I know, it's primitive to force people to do good things and threaten them, but that was the most workilng thing at that time for those people. Maybe that technique does not work for you (and actually for me to some extent), but it worked for Jews more than two thousand years ago.

I know killing is bad, and God says "don't kill" and kills everybody Himself, but He's the one who gave us life. He is the one who keeps us going every second. And all that in hope we will turn to Him. If He sees that a person will not do anything good in his life, He takes it just as He gave it. That is because our life is not given to us for living as it is, but for growing spiritually and reaching salvation. And whoever reached their upper limit, he or she goes from this life. So, in the OT, God gathered people who were spiritually ready to die and killed them just all together, using this as a show for the unfaithful Jews to threaten them and show His power. Remember that even His miracles in Egypt did not make Jews submit to the True God, but they made an idol and gone wild. Those were pretty stubborn people.

 

This is just general, and I am in no way going to explain all of the contradictions of the Bible here because it will take a substantial amount of time and space. If you have specific questions, go ahead and start a new thread on the Bible contradictions, which I guess is supposed to be opened by now since this is an ex-christian website.

 

 

And another thing you asked, how do you distinguish which is true and which isn't in the Bible? As I said, you read it as a whole. And there are also other ways. If you want, I can talk about them, but it will probably be long.

[I Broke Free]

God inspired the MIND of a man, not his hand.

 

SIEZE HIM!!

 

I’ll get the fire started!

[Merlinfmct87]

SIEZE HIM!!

 

I’ll get the fire started!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Does someone need a fireball?

 

Merlin

[orthodox christian]

I personally do not believe in arguments. Arguments do not get you to the truth, but they are just a tool which helps skilled people get all the benefits. People unskilled in argument will not be able to prove anything even if they have the truth. Therefore, if you have two skilled people, argument may go forever, and the truth will never be revealed. So, I will try to keep myself from getting into an agrument, but just tell you what I believe (which is what my church believes), and if you say you like it, go ahead and like it. If you don't, I have no power (and wish) to persuade anybody. So I will just tell you what Orhtodoxy taught me and why I concider it to be the only True Church. I might answer some of the general questions like I did with the Bible issue.

 

Should I enumerate the points?

 

1. The Orthodox Church alone preserved the original teaching of the Apostles. Orthodox IS that Early Church which everybody is trying to bring alive. It did not change the message Christ carried to the Apostles, whereas the Papists, and after them Protestants, altered the original teaching and that is why all problems started (crusades, slavery, racial inequality, atheists, feminists, etc.). There were no atheists in Orthodox countries, because no one questioned the logic and morality of Orthodoxy. Atheism, as a protest against Chrsitian faith (or the faith that passed for Christianity in the West), came into Orthodox countries with the Western notion of Christianity.

 

2. Orhtodox teaching does not have the problems that Western Christianity has. That is because Orhtodox is the original teaching, and Western teaching is just its simplified version. Orhtodox Chrsitian teaching is much richer and deeper than Western. Think about it: where a Protestant gives a cookie-cutter answer, for an Orthodox it takes pages of explanation. Things are not simple, and everything is closely interrelated and connected. There is a kind of "circular logic". That means, there are no logical holes within it, there are no contradictions. It's hard to explain this.

 

3. God is not angry with sinners, He does not punish anybody. He is always forgiving, and our sins are like a drop in the ocean to Him. He loves us all and wants us to be saved. If you want, I can explain what Hell is according to Orthodoxy.

 

4. Orthodox teaching about salvation. We are saved by God's mercy, and not by works or by faith. However, salvation is a synergy, coworking of God and human. God's power and human will are needed for salvation, sinse we do have a free will, and unless we decide to be saved, God will not save us. However, faith does help a lot in salvation, and that is why it is said that we are saved through faith. This is also very general, and the teaching goes a lot deeper than that. Salvation is art.

 

5. Miracles. There are hundreds, hundreds of miracles in Orthodoxy that happen every year. I have been witness to many miracles, and I personally witness little miracles with me every day. Given that I am pretty sceptic about things.

 

6. Subjective. I know this is the Truth. When I read Orthodox teaching, I feel it is right, when I attend the service, I know this is home. No one can argue with that. If you say that there are others who "know" that their teaching is the truth, I will say that no one is as sure as I am, and as other Orthodox folks. If God allowed, I could die for my faith (and many Orthodox christians died for their faith, even being killed and tortured by the Papists, not just Turks and Romans). There are also other feelings that I get while being Orthodox, that fall into this category: peaceful joy and repentence (which can only combine in Orthodoxy), and other feelings.

 

Ok, I need to run, I'll come back later.

[Francois Tremblay]

"The dragon in MY garage is better than yours. Mine spits fire."

"MY dragon is the One True Dragon ! He told me your dragon is fake !"

"My dragon says that all dragons are valid. So your dragon myst be fake."

"Well, my dragon gives me bigger warm fuzzies than your dragon ! I win !"

[Kryten]

Karl, thank you for the input, but I do not want to argue with you and anybody else about the contradictions in the Bible. Anything else but that, because it'll take forever. I just want to put here some of the points that I gathered over the years by reading you guys's "contradiction-opposition" in this forum and others as well.

 

The Bible was written by people, although it is inspired by God. People in the west imagine this to be as if God used the hand of a man and wrote the Bible. God inspired the MIND of a man, not his hand. And how the man expressed things God tought him, it is up to him (however, the way he wrote is also influenced by God). And we deal here with Middle Eastern men that lived thousands of years ago. Did the style of their speech differ from the one Western people use today? Of cource it did. And most of the time those phrases that include "all" and in the other place it turns out to be not "all," are contradictions just due to the manner of speach. People in the Middle East tend to substitute "all" for "many" for a better effect and only in the precise and legalistic West it seems inappropriate. People in those times did not see anything wrong with that.

 

But that is why we have such a big volume of spiritual writing -- if you take it as a whole, it levels out those distinguishing features of the speech of the authors. So, in your example, indeed, many cannot see the face of the Lord. But some can. Jesus explains this: "Pure in the Heart can see God." Pure in the heart can see God, and others can't (this is also tied to the Orhtodox teaching of Hell).

 

Another thing is that what God says, He says for the particular people. And He phrases His message in a way that they can understand and remember better. He also does a lot of things, especially in the Old Testament, for the sole purpose of converting people and turning them back to Him. All the killing and distruction, all the suffering of people in the Old Testament was done so that people would fear God and not do bad things anymore. I know, it's primitive to force people to do good things and threaten them, but that was the most workilng thing at that time for those people. Maybe that technique does not work for you (and actually for me to some extent), but it worked for Jews more than two thousand years ago.

I know killing is bad, and God says "don't kill" and kills everybody Himself, but He's the one who gave us life. He is the one who keeps us going every second. And all that in hope we will turn to Him. If He sees that a person will not do anything good in his life, He takes it just as He gave it. That is because our life is not given to us for living as it is, but for growing spiritually and reaching salvation. And whoever reached their upper limit, he or she goes from this life. So, in the OT, God gathered people who were spiritually ready to die and killed them just all together, using this as a show for the unfaithful Jews to threaten them and show His power. Remember that even His miracles in Egypt did not make Jews submit to the True God, but they made an idol and gone wild. Those were pretty stubborn people.

 

This is just general, and I am in no way going to explain all of the contradictions of the Bible here because it will take a substantial amount of time and space. If you have specific questions, go ahead and start a new thread on the Bible contradictions, which I guess is supposed to be opened by now since this is an ex-christian website.

And another thing you asked, how do you distinguish which is true and which isn't in the Bible? As I said, you read it as a whole. And there are also other ways. If you want, I can talk about them, but it will probably be long.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Are you an elected official? You have attained the rank of Grand Weasel! Another good application of the Apologetic Method.

Taken as a whole, the Bible is full of attrocities, immorality by those God put in power, conflicting instructions, gross contradictions, and general idiocy. There, I took it as a whole. God seems to be a childish, petty, immoral monster who lacks communication skills. I can understand why you don't want to take the time to defend all the contradictions. I would be afraid to, too, since it's an indefensible position. And of course I, too, would use the excuse that it would take too much time. The only QUESTION is which rationalization goes with which contradiction, but I suppose you'd use the standard insufficient apologies and when they fail resort to the "God didn't really mean that" argument. What is that-- "The Argument From God's Incompetance"?? So your whole doctrine is subjective, since you can't count on any verse or scripture to be accurate at any given time. Is that correct?

[Kryten]

I personally do not believe in arguments. Arguments do not get you to the truth, but they are just a tool which helps skilled people get all the benefits. People unskilled in argument will not be able to prove anything even if they have the truth. Therefore, if you have two skilled people, argument may go forever, and the truth will never be revealed.

 

Only if one of them has an emotional commitment to his point and cannot concede under ANY circumstances. If both are skilled and honest, then there should be an end to the argument.

 

There were no atheists in Orthodox countries, because no one questioned the logic and morality of Orthodoxy. Atheism, as a protest against Chrsitian faith (or the faith that passed for Christianity in the West), came into Orthodox countries with the Western notion of Christianity.

 

Bull. Atheists don't disbelieve because they hate God or Christians or anyone. They don't have enough evidence to believe, or they DO have enough evidence to disbelieve. You are showing your church indoctrination.

 

2. Orhtodox teaching does not have the problems that Western Christianity has. That is because Orhtodox is the original teaching, and Western teaching is just its simplified version. Orhtodox Chrsitian teaching is much richer and deeper than Western. Think about it: where a Protestant gives a cookie-cutter answer, for an Orthodox it takes pages of explanation. Things are not simple, and everything is closely interrelated and connected. There is a kind of "circular logic". That means, there are no logical holes within it, there are no contradictions. It's hard to explain this.

 

No, the Gnostics were Christians before the Orthodox or any others you mentioned, and they didn't even think Jesus ever lived as a real person. Your breakaway sect is just another that gained power and popularity, thus survived (survival of the fittest).

 

3. God is not angry with sinners, He does not punish anybody. He is always forgiving, and our sins are like a drop in the ocean to Him. He loves us all and wants us to be saved. If you want, I can explain what Hell is according to Orthodoxy.

 

Irrelevant. Have whatever hell you want. I know it doesn't exist. Moses, Adam, Adam's God, David, and all other OT characters knew not of it.

 

 

4. Orthodox teaching about salvation. We are saved by God's mercy, and not by works or by faith. However, salvation is a synergy, coworking of God and human. God's power and human will are needed for salvation, sinse we do have a free will, and unless we decide to be saved, God will not save us. However, faith does help a lot in salvation, and that is why it is said that we are saved through faith. This is also very general, and the teaching goes a lot deeper than that. Salvation is art.

 

You are visitor #17302 to the CREATE-A-HOW-TO-BE-SAVED Doctrine Webpage!!

Are you sure you happened upon the right one? Do you think you would be saved if you were born in Tehran, Mexico City, or Somalia?

 

5. Miracles. There are hundreds, hundreds of miracles in Orthodoxy that happen every year. I have been witness to many miracles, and I personally witness little miracles with me every day. Given that I am pretty sceptic about things.

 

I see miracles every day too. Every time something happens that doesn't normally happen every day is a miracle from God. Or from Satan. Or chance. Whatever. Miracles are wherever you want to see them. Did you bring your evidence or have we already seen it?

 

6. Subjective. I know this is the Truth. When I read Orthodox teaching, I fe

el it is right, when I attend the service, I know this is home. No one can argue with that. If you say that there are others who "know" that their teaching is the truth, I will say that no one is as sure as I am, and as other Orthodox folks. If God allowed, I could die for my faith (and many Orthodox christians died for their faith, even being killed and tortured by the Papists, not just Turks and Romans). There are also other feelings that I get while being Orthodox, that fall into this category: peaceful joy and repentence (which can only combine in Orthodoxy), and other feelings.

 

Ok, I need to run, I'll come back later.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You seem to have a great inner need for a god or something, and you've found one, or something. You love your home and church and people. To you that makes it good, and, something must be true. Good luck with that.

[Kryten]

Oh, and there were no athiests during the inqiusition, either. Well, only crispy ones.

[orthodox christian]

Francois, I guess this a nice analogy, if only dragons really existed. And if "my dragon" was the First of All Dragons.

 

 

 

 

Kryten, who is that Weasel guy?

 

I am not the right person to argue with about the Bible contradicitons. Although I might have answers, I think it would be better for an Orthodox priest to defend the Bible and explain contradictions. You might ask, why they are there in the first place? Well, as I said, it was written by people. The ten commandments did not have contradictions because they came straight from God. But I gave an explanation for most of the contradictions. If you don't like it, oh well.

"God really didn't mean that"? Hm, did I say that? If He didn't mean what He did, then that god must be a fool. He means what He does, but it is us who need the special treatment. If we need God to be a "childish, petty, immoral monster" to help our salvation, He will appear to us like that, that's all.

 

 

So your whole doctrine is subjective, since you can't count on any verse or scripture to be accurate at any given time. Is that correct?

 

Yes and no. Rather, we count on the teaching that was handled down to us from the Apostles, and we read the Bible from that perspective. Not forgetting that it was written by Middle-Eastern men thousands of years ago and they might describe things differently than we do today.

[Francois Tremblay]

Yea... Christianity might be a good idea, if God existed.

[orthodox christian]

Only if one of them has an emotional commitment to his point and cannot concede under ANY circumstances.

 

Indeed, even death.

 

 

Bull. Atheists don't disbelieve because they hate God or Christians or anyone. They don't have enough evidence to believe, or they DO have enough evidence to disbelieve. You are showing your church indoctrination.

 

Like the Doctrine of Hell wasn't the last drop for most of the folks here in leaving Christianity?

 

 

No, the Gnostics were Christians before the Orthodox or any others you mentioned, and they didn't even think Jesus ever lived as a real person. Your breakaway sect is just another that gained power and popularity, thus survived (survival of the fittest).

 

Were the Apostles gnostics? There is an unbroken line that goes from the Apostles to the modern days. But I have no time to prove this now. And wish, actually. Will it make a difference?

 

 

Irrelevant. Have whatever hell you want. I know it doesn't exist. Moses, Adam, Adam's God, David, and all other OT characters knew not of it.

 

I don't know what to say about the OT, but it is in the NT.

 

 

Are you sure you happened upon the right one? Do you think you would be saved if you were born in Tehran, Mexico City, or Somalia?

 

Everybody has a chance.

 

 

I see miracles every day too. Every time something happens that doesn't normally happen every day is a miracle from God. Or from Satan. Or chance. Whatever. Miracles are wherever you want to see them. Did you bring your evidence or have we already seen it?

 

We have people shining with light like Jesus did, walking upon the water, being at two places at the same time, levitating, moving stuff with their words, in addition to healing and prophesizing. One prophesy says that Turkey will cease to exist. I do not remember exactly, but it says the territory will go to Greece, so it will become Orhtodox. I agree, I cannot give you evidence now for all of this. However, I have at least one miracle documented. I want to refer you to the Healings thread, cause I am going there now.

 

 

You seem to have a great inner need for a god or something, and you've found one, or something. You love your home and church and people. To you that makes it good, and, something must be true. Good luck with that.

 

Thanks, but I am not the only one who feels this way. Now we have whole families of European and Hispanic Americans converting to Orthodoxy, and we even have jokes about converts who always come to the services fifteen minutes before cradle Orthodox. We call it "coming home" and it is not just a home that you feel comfortable it, it's the Ultimate Home. You don't have to believe me, becasue I cannot transfer my experience over to you. You have your own, and you rely on it. But you are not the only one reading this.

[nightflight]

Like the Doctrine of Hell wasn't the last drop for most of the folks here in leaving Christianity?

 

Leaving xianity and atheism are not synonomous.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Orthodox Christian, I am glad that you've joined this board. Your posts are a brath of fresh air compared to the ravings of Protestant fundamentalists. You understand tradition, you have a historical sense. I salute you for those things.

 

I rather miss Munari, our one-time Catholic apologist. It's so awful that in the US the Protestants act as though the Holy Spirit skipped over about 13 centuries from Polycarp and Papias to Luther (maybe they'll allow Augustine and St. John Chrystostom in there, but they don't really read their works).

 

Still, OC, you have to deal with the same shit that everyone else faces. what to do with a bible that's laced with contradictions? What to do with theological incoherence like the problem of evil? Miracle stories are nice but a dime a dozen in all religions. You adduce yours, Muslims adduce theirs, Hindus adduce theirs, on and on.

 

In addition, you've got to face: 1. the bishop of Rome was always acknowledged as first. His stamp of approval had to back up any ecumenical council. It's no wonder that the eastern churches generally do not admit any new ecumenical councils; as though they dare not in the absence of the successor of St. peter!

2. the doctrinal substance between western and eastern churches is very little. The kernel is cultural, linguistic, ecclesiological and political. So why not just work out a rapprochement? Who the hell really understands the issues behind the "filioque"? Different bible verses can go either way. There's no excuse for a failure to unite east and west among those who believe in the seven sacraments, etc. etc.

3. churches in schism tend to split further, as we've seen happen in orthodoxy. How many Russian church bodies are there operating in conflict among each other in the US?

4. The patriarch of Constantinople is under the control of the Turkish govt. That's why Iakovos was not elevated to that position and Bartholomaios got it. The pope despite the many problems of the papacy is independent of secular govts/

 

ektimo tin ekklesia giati egine to kentro tis epanastasis enantion tous turkous.

[Guest Son of Belial]

Kryten said:

 

Bull. Atheists don't disbelieve because they hate God or Christians or anyone. They don't have enough evidence to believe, or they DO have enough evidence to disbelieve. You are showing your church indoctrination.

 

Guess she never heard of that Greek chap who was put to death for disbelief in Zeus.

 

Orthodox Christian spewed:

Like the Doctrine of Hell wasn't the last drop for most of the folks here in leaving Christianity?

 

The denomination I was raised in didn't believe in Hell, so I can firmly say that my disbelief had absolutely nothing to do with Hell whatsoever.

 

There is an unbroken line that goes from the Apostles to the modern days. But I have no time to prove this now.

 

Hear it before, always ask for proof, opponent runs like a little bitch. I don't forsee anything different.

 

But then again, you're the first one to come here with firsthand knowledge of the One True Religion and evidence, so we'll see what happens with that.

 

I don't know what to say about the OT, but it(hell) is in the NT.

 

Doesn't that tell you something? Is the clue train headed your way yet?

 

Thanks, but I am not the only one who feels this way. Now we have whole families of European and Hispanic Americans converting to Orthodoxy, and we even have jokes about converts who always come to the services fifteen minutes before cradle Orthodox.

 

Yeah, because great numbers of people who believe in something is validation. I was going to write a long, witty piece here about various things you disbelieve being true, but it really speaks for itself.

[Merlinfmct87]

I personally do not believe in arguments. Arguments do not get you to the truth, but they are just a tool which helps skilled people get all the benefits. People unskilled in argument will not be able to prove anything even if they have the truth. Therefore, if you have two skilled people, argument may go forever, and the truth will never be revealed. So, I will try to keep myself from getting into an agrument, but just tell you what I believe (which is what my church believes), and if you say you like it, go ahead and like it. If you don't, I have no power (and wish) to persuade anybody. So I will just tell you what Orhtodoxy taught me and why I concider it to be the only True Church. I might answer some of the general questions like I did with the Bible issue.

 

Um.

 

NO.

 

Debate can and will be used to sway the minds of learned members of the world. I would propose to you that it is the ignorant, unskilled in the proper techniques of rhetoric and debate who will never change his/her mind through debate.

 

Skilled debaters, especially when presented with a weak opponent, will win the debate very quickly. By "win" I mean prove his point beyond doubt.

 

What causes the debates to drag on for 50 pages is when the ignorant debator fails to realize his point has been invalidated... and keeps pushing it.

 

It's like playing chess after you captured the king in the first 10 moves. You can't get through the fact that he LOST, so you just decide to keep playing and capture the rest of the pieces for fun.

 

Then he says you didn't REALLY capture all the pieces, and tries to put them back on the board in a checkmate position...

 

Only if one of them has an emotional commitment to his point and cannot concede under ANY circumstances.

 

Indeed, even death.

 

This sounds familiar... not willing to accept the king is dead, perhaps?

 

Should I enumerate the points?

 

1. The Orthodox Church alone preserved the original teaching of the Apostles. Orthodox IS that Early Church which everybody is trying to bring alive. It did not change the message Christ carried to the Apostles, whereas the Papists, and after them Protestants, altered the original teaching and that is why all problems started (crusades, slavery, racial inequality, atheists, feminists, etc.). There were no atheists in Orthodox countries, because no one questioned the logic and morality of Orthodoxy. Atheism, as a protest against Chrsitian faith (or the faith that passed for Christianity in the West), came into Orthodox countries with the Western notion of Christianity.

 

Oh joy. You follow the TRUE teachings of the Christ. Like we haven't heard that one before.

 

2. Orhtodox teaching does not have the problems that Western Christianity has. That is because Orhtodox is the original teaching, and Western teaching is just its simplified version. Orhtodox Chrsitian teaching is much richer and deeper than Western. Think about it: where a Protestant gives a cookie-cutter answer, for an Orthodox it takes pages of explanation. Things are not simple, and everything is closely interrelated and connected. There is a kind of "circular logic". That means, there are no logical holes within it, there are no contradictions. It's hard to explain this.

 

I can imagine. Bible doctrine without problems? Sounds bloody impossible.

 

3. God is not angry with sinners, He does not punish anybody. He is always forgiving, and our sins are like a drop in the ocean to Him. He loves us all and wants us to be saved. If you want, I can explain what Hell is according to Orthodoxy.

 

o.O

 

Yes, please do. Because what you say goes exactly contradictory of the Bible I know.

 

4. Orthodox teaching about salvation. We are saved by God's mercy, and not by works or by faith. However, salvation is a synergy, coworking of God and human. God's power and human will are needed for salvation, sinse we do have a free will, and unless we decide to be saved, God will not save us. However, faith does help a lot in salvation, and that is why it is said that we are saved through faith. This is also very general, and the teaching goes a lot deeper than that. Salvation is art.

 

?

 

So If I'm a mean SOB I'm still saved if I pray right?

 

 

5. Miracles. There are hundreds, hundreds of miracles in Orthodoxy that happen every year. I have been witness to many miracles, and I personally witness little miracles with me every day. Given that I am pretty sceptic about things.

 

pfft.

 

You cannot be a skeptic and believe in miracles. Period.

 

6. Subjective. I know this is the Truth. When I read Orthodox teaching, I feel it is right, when I attend the service, I know this is home. No one can argue with that. If you say that there are others who "know" that their teaching is the truth, I will say that no one is as sure as I am, and as other Orthodox folks. If God allowed, I could die for my faith (and many Orthodox christians died for their faith, even being killed and tortured by the Papists, not just Turks and Romans). There are also other feelings that I get while being Orthodox, that fall into this category: peaceful joy and repentence (which can only combine in Orthodoxy), and other feelings.

 

Ok, I need to run, I'll come back later.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Salvation only through you? Where have I heard that before?

 

Oh yeah. Every other denomination.

 

You might have a funny accent Orthodox, but you still smell the same.

 

Merlin

[bob]

I personally do not believe in arguments. Arguments do not get you to the truth, but they are just a tool which helps skilled people get all the benefits. People unskilled in argument will not be able to prove anything even if they have the truth. Therefore, if you have two skilled people, argument may go forever, and the truth will never be revealed.

Perhaps I am confused. You have told me how the "truth" is not revealed. Now tell me how the "truth" is revealed.

BTW, I am unskilled in the art of argument.

[orthodox christian]

OK, let me repeat once again:

 

YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE ORTHODOX TO BE SAVED!

 

BUT YOU NEED TO FOLLOW YOUR CONSCIENCE EITHER IF YOU ARE ORTHODOX OR NOT! SOB's usuallly have troubles after death, whatever they are.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would propose to you that it is the ignorant, unskilled in the proper techniques of rhetoric and debate who will never change his/her mind through debate.

 

This might be applied either ways

 

 

Skilled debaters, especially when presented with a weak opponent, will win the debate very quickly. By "win" I mean prove his point beyond doubt.

 

I think, Ex-monkey in this forum said that there are different kinds of logic, so for one person that can be "beyond doubt" and for the other stubborness. That is why we have debates in politics among educated people. Each has his own logic, his own pattern of thought. Atheists like to refer to some kind of "universal" logic which should be a standard for all. But do atheists always agree on stuff? Why do we have democrats and republicans? Arguments are not the way out of a problem. Peaceful and patient discussion maybe (without false expectations from both sides).

 

 

This sounds familiar... not willing to accept the king is dead, perhaps?

 

I always lose in chess, because I cannot play it very well. But if I brought my cousin, he would find a way out of a difficult situation in no time. This depends on the skill. I might have the facts, but I might not know how to use them. I am not good at advertising business

 

 

Oh joy. You follow the TRUE teachings of the Christ. Like we haven't heard that one before.

 

That is an illogical assumption. However often you hear different individuals say that they are right does not affect the fact that one of them may actually be right.

 

 

I can imagine. Bible doctrine without problems? Sounds bloody impossible.

 

Our teaching is not built upon the Bible. The Bible is written according to the teaching. And so you need to know the teaching in order to understand the Bible. I guess you haven't heard of this one either .

 

 

Yes, please do. Because what you say goes exactly contradictory of the Bible I know.

 

The Bible is not written in literal forms. There are some verses which reveal the true teaching, and others are just how people are used to talk about Hell and Judgement. In Orthodoxy, we also use the word "Judge" for God, but only because it is easier to think about salvation in that way. But everybody knows what really God is and that He does not judge. We are the Eastern people, we think in a different way. It's Western Protestants who need a clear term for everything. It is difficult to explain, because it's very subtle.

 

 

You cannot be a skeptic and believe in miracles. Period.

 

I only say "believe" in miracles. It's hard for me to believe, I need proof. And when I get it, I know that it's real. I also have doubts, but over time I learn that they are unnecessary.

 

 

You might have a funny accent Orthodox, but you still smell the same.

 

If you had the trouble to study the Eastern thought, you will not say this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The denomination I was raised in didn't believe in Hell, so I can firmly say that my disbelief had absolutely nothing to do with Hell whatsoever.

 

Did I say "you"? You might be an exception.

 

 

Hear it before, always ask for proof, opponent runs like a little bitch. I don't forsee anything different.

 

I don't have time to dig for the proof, and actually will, because, as I said, it will not make any difference. As one atheist put it, it's usless to talk with a wall. And so even if I give you the proof, I will need to give you the proof that that proof is true, and then the proof of the proof of the proof, and so on. This will never end. So why go into it?

 

 

But then again, you're the first one to come here with firsthand knowledge of the One True Religion™ and evidence, so we'll see what happens with that.

 

It's simply impossible to give you all the evidence you want, because there is so many of you, and I am only one. It's unfair to ask me to give you all you want. I give only what I have.

 

 

Doesn't that tell you something? Is the clue train headed your way yet?

 

There is an explanation for everything. There are rational explanations of UFO's which you never thought of. For example, sometimes the air might become a mirror in the boundary between 2 walls of cooler and warmer air. It reflects objects just as the surface of a freeway reflects cars upon it. Never thought of it? Why think that there are no explanations for the differences in the OT and the NT?

 

 

Yeah, because great numbers of people who believe in something is validation. I was going to write a long, witty piece here about various things you disbelieve being true, but it really speaks for itself.

 

Go for it, I'll see what I can say.

 

 

 

 

 

Orthodox Christian, I am glad that you've joined this board. Your posts are a brath of fresh air compared to the ravings of Protestant fundamentalists. You understand tradition, you have a historical sense. I salute you for those things.

 

Thank you, I suppose you also do value those if you salute me

 

Still, OC, you have to deal with the same shit that everyone else faces. what to do with a bible that's laced with contradictions? What to do with theological incoherence like the problem of evil? Miracle stories are nice but a dime a dozen in all religions. You adduce yours, Muslims adduce theirs, Hindus adduce theirs, on and on.

 

Orthodox is differnt from the Papist church, you are supposed to know this by now if you are so educated in Church history. Tell me of the miracles of Hindus and Muslims? Do they have the ultimate cure of nightmares? They don't, I tried them

 

 

In addition, you've got to face: 1. the bishop of Rome was always acknowledged as first. His stamp of approval had to back up any ecumenical council. It's no wonder that the eastern churches generally do not admit any new ecumenical councils; as though they dare not in the absence of the successor of St. peter!

 

Succession of St. Peter is a heresy in Orthodoxy. The Bishop of Rome was considered "first among equals" just because he was the Bishop of the Capital of Roman Empire, that's all. Now his place is taken by the Bishop of Constantinople. There were two times when the Popes were mistaken in the doctrine and they had to submit to the decisions of the Ecumenical Counsils (so much for Papal infallibility).

 

 

2. the doctrinal substance between western and eastern churches is very little. The kernel is cultural, linguistic, ecclesiological and political. So why not just work out a rapprochement?

 

In Orthodoxy, it's absurd to pay for a sin with blood or with money. And there is a huge crust of theology that stands behind that sencence. I have no time to educate you on that, I'm sorry. East and West are profoundly different. And "filioque" has almost nothing to do with this.

 

 

3. churches in schism tend to split further, as we've seen happen in orthodoxy. How many Russian church bodies are there operating in conflict among each other in the US?

 

There is a trend to unite the Russian Churches (which are two -- the Church abroad and the Chruch of Moscow Patriarchate), they have minor disagreements.

 

 

 

4. The patriarch of Constantinople is under the control of the Turkish govt. That's why Iakovos was not elevated to that position and Bartholomaios got it. The pope despite the many problems of the papacy is independent of secular govts/

 

I dont' understand what you are trying to say here.

[orthodox christian]

Bob, the Truth can only be shown. And that's what I am trying to do here.

[Cerise]

hey sweets, I tried your cure for nightmares. No deal. Woke up whimpering in a cold sweat last night, same dream. I thought you said this stuff works?

[Sokudo Ningyou]

I just find it funny that even despite the illogical inconsistancies, there's always some glib answer to get around it. My roommate does the same thing, and he's a preacher's son dealing with his own problems with his faith in God! Even he can point out the problems, the biggest ones you'd think would finally give him a clue...

 

Nope. He still believes in Jesus. Jesus is the Miracle Man. Doesn't even matter that he makes no sense.