Orthodoxy

[bob]

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

So, if I understand you correctly, you now have the truth, and the only way that I, as a non believer, can receive the truth is to shut up and listen...to you.

 

I can't even think of a sarcastic remark right now.

[Merlinfmct87]

OK, let me repeat once again:

 

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

 

You don't have to be anything to be saved.

 

See, we don't buy hell. Period.

 

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

 

*waiting for argument*

 

 

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).

 

Different.... forms... of........... logic.

 

That's good! That's a new one on me. That's original.

 

So are you saying a != a in some places? Are you saying that if a Russian adds 2 and 2 he might get 5, because he was raised in a different culture?

 

What you are saying is that reality doesn't exist.

 

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

 

This isn't advertising. This is debate. And generally, if you know the facts, you don't need much skill to use them.

 

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 .

 

Salad Bar Leviticus? Beautiful.

 

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.

 

See above.

 

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... learn... that doubts are... UNNECESSARY?!

 

Dude, do you even know what SKEPTISISM MEANS?!

 

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.

 

*laughs*

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?

 

If you don't have time to dig for proof that makes all of us wrong, wtf is occupying your time? Discovering Warp Drive?

 

Merlin

[Guest Son of Belial]

Orthodox Goofball said:

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.

 

Yeah... Ex-Monkey is brilliant. He knows everything.

 

 

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?

 

Oh, I see. So I was right. Just like all the others, you tell us you have proof, but won't show us. Thanks.

 

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?

 

Apples and oranges. Yes, you can explain UFO's. You can explain that the northern lights are not valkyries. You can explain that serpents got here without losing their legs to God after tempting two people.

 

Your example is one of taking a superstition and explaining it logically and scientifically. I was pointing out the fact that an innerrant work had contradictions.

 

How did Judas die?

 

Bob said:

So, if I understand you correctly, you now have the truth, and the only way that I, as a non believer, can receive the truth is to shut up and listen...to you.

 

I can't even think of a sarcastic remark right now.

 

Yeah, but when I asked her to show me proof, she said it wasn't worth it because we wouldn't believe her. I love how the process goes:

 

a ) Says she has proof.

b ) Says she can only show us.

c ) We ask to see.

d ) Says she won't show us because we won't believe her.

 

Yeah. Okay.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

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

 

Refighting the Great Schism isn't really my fight, since I don't believe in God. But I brought up some of these points, so in the spirit of the discussion---

 

Orthodox and RC do differ, but won't you admit that the greater part of their core is shared? Otherwise, how can both be Christian? To be a heretic or schismatic is not to be a non-Christian. Orthodox people have always spoken to me about the Bible's being a chief part of Tradition. I admit, therefore, that Orthodoxy isn't boxed into as many corners about literalism as is fundamentalist Protestantism. Still, it's weird to accept doctrinal assertions of a tradition as inerrant, when that tradition's historical assertions -- contained in the bible or in sayings of early fathers about Jesus or in any other ancient source -- contain internal contradictions or propositions that are false,, as far as we can judge by historical methodology.

As to non-Christian miracles, I was raised in a form of Vedanta, in which miracle stories were recounted all the time, many of them recent. For one older example of many, here's one I encountered today in the New Yorker, Apr. 25, 2005, p. 50:

"Accompanying the Mongol empire's eventual quiet retreat back into the steppes was the conversion of the majority of the Mongols to Tibetan Buddhism. Sonam Gyatso, who became the Dalai Lama in 1543, set out on a missionary journey to Mongolia in 1577, performed many miracles on the way, and was greeted by the Mongols with rejoicing. In less than a generation, many Mongols had become Lamaists, renouncing not only warfare but all other violence..."

Your stories of miracles to support doctrines of Orthodoxy are matched by this in support of Buddhism. And so on with miracle stories; all religions have 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).

 

Years ago when I was in the process of giving up Protestantism and looking into sacerdotal churches I spent a lot of time looking up sayings in the Fathers about the role of the bishop of Rome. I submit that your assertions in the paragraph above are later developments in the Orthodox view, not the view of Chrysostom and others who predated 1054.

 

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.

 

OC, with respect, you are the one who came onto this board preaching. If you have no time to educate people who bring up arguments against your view, then what are you doing here? Your above paragraph does nothing except make vague assertions, as far as I can see.

 

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][/color]

 

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

 

Not a big deal, and not a theological argument. I'm just repeating the old criticsm of Catholics that the Orthodox churches, having lost the linchpin that the successor of Peter provided, fell under domination of the state: first the Roman/Byzantine emperor, then the Turkish sultan or Russian tsar or whoever, now modern states. The Turkish govt has veto power over selection of the Ecumenical Patriarch, and they exercised it in the case of Bartholomaios over Iakovos, who had much support outside the Phanar. That's an unhealthy situation that is a result, in the RC view, of the Eastern church's schismatic position. RC's would say that the independence of the Papacy from secular domination, oft-threatened though it has been through history, is a sign of God's favor. That claim is a matter of indifference to me, personally, not being a Christian. I think it's worth considering for one who does profess a form of Christianity that claims apostolic succession as one of its important principles, but has lost the successor of the church founded by Peter and Paul (that's the reason the early fathers give for the position of the bishop of Rome, not his residence in the imperial capital, which was often Milan or Ravenna or other cities closer to the borders).

[chefranden]

I personally do not believe in arguments. ...

 

1. The Orthodox Church alone preserved the original teaching of the Apostles. Orthodox IS that Early Church which everybody is trying to bring alive...

 

I suppose that it would be rude of me to point out that this is an argument, even though you have not offered any support for it.

 

I thought that you were going to show how Western Christianity is heretical. It would seem that such a demonstration would require some argument and support. After all it would seem that it would be the East's word against the West's word.

[chefranden]

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.

 

 

Subjective experience is interpreted according to the memes one is immersed in. You are not taking into account human physiology that produces these feelings of being "at home" no matter what culture one is part of.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here you have made another argument without support. You obviously would not accept the same claim from a Morman, a Moony, or a Muslim. There is no reason why it should be accepted from you and not from them, unless you can show why it is sso.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you suggesting that the Orthodox are peaceful and non-violent and don't go about rubbing out heretics and other troublesome folks?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even though you don't "believe in argument", here is another. It is unsupported as before.

[Christopher Carrion]

The whole argument kind of becomes irrelevant when you consider that the documents collectively referred to as "the bible" are a collection of myths, traditions and ideas lifted from a variety of far older, "pagan" faiths and cultures and forcibly re-written to encompass the writer's spiritual, moral and socio-cultural intentions, don't it?