Want to read criticism of EO belief/practice.

[Ortho_Cat]

I personally don't because it's too emotionally loaded and their responses will reflect their "unique" way of interpreting Scripture.

If you ask me, it's better to go right to their epistemology so you can see how they must put blind faith in their church, since they cannot discern truth on their own since their system is either ad hoc, convoluted, recursive, and arbitrary or else it's based on personal expereince and they like some charismatics can come to truth through subjective mystical experiences. Either way, what they end up saying is "We're the One True Church because we say we're the One True Church."

always leave it up to file to make a thread interesting

I am heading out to dinner, but I will just encourage people to examine the claims of the EO for themselves, and not take our word for it. I encourage a person to look at our faith within the entire context of what we (as a Christian community) have received; church history, the canons, the councils, the writings of the church fathers and saints, the liturgy/hymns, the services, and of course the scripture (i'm sure I missed some).

We believe that Christian truth, like any other form of truth, is neither relative nor subjective (e.g. burning in your bosom, etc.) and that it is worth defending. We also believe that God's truth can be discerned, by using the tools he gave us, reason, our senses, our mind, our heart, and especially prayer. But we have to be open to discerning these truths...

 

[cupid dave]

I personally don't because it's too emotionally loaded and their responses will reflect their "unique" way of interpreting Scripture.

If you ask me, it's better to go right to their epistemology so you can see how they must put blind faith in their church, since they cannot discern truth on their own since their system is either ad hoc, convoluted, recursive, and arbitrary or else it's based on personal expereince and they like some charismatics can come to truth through subjective mystical experiences. Either way, what they end up saying is "We're the One True Church because we say we're the One True Church."

Well we must remember that in 1054AD the RCC had becomes so immoral, especially sexually immoral, that the EO represents the people who had every reason to schism from it.

And, the EO seems condoned by that the prophecy (that the real church would exist for exactly 1000 years) which implies that these first break away "protestants" we the real christians.

With that in mind, I see the icons as a form of language.
That visual "language" of using pictures, albeit hand made "words", drawings, or stained glass that could be used to tell the gospel story.

I also think that some of the criticism of the icons was covetedness, as this new church was gathering sheep from the old standard RCC.

Remember, RC Christianity was mandatory from 380AD on when Theo I outlawed all other religions.

Some of the many iconic hand signs were silenced but we know the were long accepted in the earlier years of the millennium:

 

[ProScribe]

I think the Bishop or the Ecumenical Patriarch answers these responses/criticisms on behalf of the Church.

 

[Rick Otto]

It is good to be able to laugh at ourselves

True, but let's not whistle past the graveyard.

 

[Huram Abi]

I personally don't because it's too emotionally loaded and their responses will reflect their "unique" way of interpreting Scripture.

If you ask me, it's better to go right to their epistemology so you can see how they must put blind faith in their church, since they cannot discern truth on their own since their system is either ad hoc, convoluted, recursive, and arbitrary or else it's based on personal expereince and they like some charismatics can come to truth through subjective mystical experiences. Either way, what they end up saying is "We're the One True Church because we say we're the One True Church."

In one way or another all Christian denominations boil down to this, however. These elements exist right near the core of Christianity, which is why faith has become such a virtue.

Think about it: if we didn't need faith to support our belief, would we rely on it?

No! We would rely on evidence, which is what we see happening anyway with so many people trying to find "evidence" to demonstrate validity to their faith such as the Shroud of Turn, anecdotal evidence, or even trying to convolute the bible to try to match it up with science ("Genesis 1:1 is about the big bang!")


You're talking about a problem that isn't isolated to the EO.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Superlative claims.
Too much get-up & gear.
Too authority & obediance emphasis heavy for my taste,
but then large organizations get into crowd control.
That's my personal general criticism.
Their sotoriology, sacramentology, & some of their ecclesiology is
also unacceptable to me. I don't have enough time for liturgy. I was
force fed enough of that growing up in parochial schools.
No offense intended.

Originally Posted by razeontherock

It is good to be able to laugh at ourselves
​

True, but let's not whistle past the graveyard.

Some people actually do that?

Isa 7:18
In that day the LORD will whistle for flies from the Nile delta in Egypt
and for bees from the land of Assyria.