Mary and Joseph

[Uphill Battle]

So, they walked around with a sign that said:

[sign][c]You can trust what I am saying,

because one day my writings will be in
the bible, which will be considered the
infallible rule of faith for Christians. [/c][/sign]

possibly. But it isn't in the bible, so I suppose I'm not allowed to believe it.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Your "spoonfed" comment is pretty pathetic on a number of levels, but primarily because most of the Orthodox Christians on this forum have come to become Orthodox after years of searching, struggling and testing. For many of us it has been a far from painless journey. The fact that we are Orthodox now is because we have not been willing to be spoonfed. We have tested the beliefs of our former faiths and found them wanting. We cannot say the same for Orthodoxy.
The fact is, we have probably already done our research on such teachings and found them wanting. That's why we've become Orthodox.

John

I think I'm misunderstood, and used a far stronger term than I should. For any offense, I apologize. I do not speak about the individual, I speak about the organization, it expects that you will believe every single thing, and anything without the "orthodox stamp of approval" is deemed untrustworthy.

Now, how would you respond to those whom have done their study, and found Orthodox wanting?

Would you accept teachings that contradict what you came to believe after 25 years of adult study, prayer, and investigation? Or would you defend them, as you have been doing on this thread?
Nevermind, we see your answer.

I will constantly seek the truth. If new arguments are presented, I will consider them.

Whose scholarship and study?

mine. I'm ultimately responsible for educating myself in the matter.

Strawman.
Show me where I have said such. Please, prove this to be so.
What this is on you part is an ad hominem. You won't deal with the positions, you attack the group on a global basis.

the CHURCH says as much. It matters not if you do. My issue is with no single orthodox person! nor is it with any single member of the RCC. I admire your passion in arguments, and it should be so. I reject the assertion of the RCC and the Orthodox that they have everything right. So, seeing as my argument is not against a man, it can't be ad hominem.

Here's how this works: you say "I'm open to changing my views, but you're not" whilst attacking not our views, but our person.
I have addressed the views of OSAS and paedobaptism. You have not replied to my address of the views, but have instead attacked the Catholic and Orthodox.
You might reply that I have attacked Protestants- but it is not so. There are many, many Protestants whose views on Baptism and salvation are very similar to my own.

I can only maintain so many arguments at once, and in truth, am growing rather sick of it. I have pondered leaving CF altogether. Anyone who dares challange any of the "one true church" teachings are belittled, and accused of "attacking" as above. So be it.

So, enough of the ad hominem- deal with the issues.

issue: RCC/Orthodox claim to have all the answers to faith and morals. I reject this.

Your argument was an atheist argument.

"If you would give any thought"- as if I hadn't. I give thought to everything, and have explored the matters and continue to do so. You assume, evidently, that we Orthodox are mindless drones spouting the party line and condemning all who will not be assimilated. In point of fact, I am addressing issues, consider doing the same. Thx

I call it like I see it. Frankly, I would think that the thought of giving up "perfection" would be a real problem for most. Again, I don't state that any individual didn't do any thinking, just that the expectation is that any non-orthodox teaching is ultimately false, according to the church. And I find this rather dubious, as Orthodox and RCC can't even seem to get their shared history straight.

 

[prodromos]

I speak about the organization, it expects that you will believe every single thing, and anything without the "orthodox stamp of approval" is deemed untrustworthy.

Oh we can test and scrutinize. We are not expected to mindlessly accept or reject anything. However, when a certain person has consistently given you wise advice and you have found everything they have told you thus far to be true, they gain both your respect and trust. You no longer need to put everything they say under a microscope but can take them at their word. This is how we view the Orthodox Church. The contrary can be said for those who have not given you reliable information in the past. If you have learned from experience that a particular source can't be trusted then you are unlikely to accept anything that comes from them.

Now, how would you respond to those whom have done their study, and found Orthodox wanting?

Prayer.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Oh we can test and scrutinize. We are not expected to mindlessly accept or reject anything. However, when a certain person has consistently given you wise advice and you have found everything they have told you thus far to be true, they gain both your respect and trust. You no longer need to put everything they say under a microscope but can take them at their word. This is how we view the Orthodox Church. The contrary can be said for those who have not given you reliable information in the past. If you have learned from experience that a particular source can't be trusted then you are unlikely to accept anything that comes from them.
Prayer.

which is why I do not trust the source.


Do you assert that those who find the Orthodox church lacking have not prayed about the matter?

 

[Benedicta00]

Now, how would you respond to those whom have done their study, and found Orthodox wanting?

What has it left you waiting? Authority over what you will find is true?

 

[Uphill Battle]

What has it left you waiting? Authority over what you will find is true?

I'm speaking about Orthodox currently. Don't get me started on RC, I have more reservations about their teachings than the Orthodox.

 

[Benedicta00]

I'm speaking about Orthodox currently. Don't get me started on RC, I have more reservations about their teachings than the Orthodox.

okay.

Now what is wanting in the theology?

The fact that you can not control it?

be honest...

 

[Uphill Battle]

okay.

Now what is wanting in the theology?

The fact that you can not control it?

be honest...

it has nothing to do with my control.

 

[Questor]

How about that Joseph and Mary....

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The facts come down to this.

Some hold The Church in high regard, and some hold it as not trustworthy.

To those who hold that The Church as not trustworthy...

Who told you that The Holy Scriptures are the infallable word of God?

Forgive me...

 

[Uphill Battle]

The facts come down to this.

Some hold The Church in high regard, and some hold it as not trustworthy.

To those who hold that The Church as not trustworthy...

Who told you that The Holy Scriptures are the infallable word of God?

Forgive me...

what you don't realize is that the church today is not the same as the church then.

The church TODAY is untrustworthy.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

what you don't realize is that the church today is not the same as the church then.

The church TODAY is untrustworthy.

Then Christ's promise failed.

Forgive me...

 

[Uphill Battle]

Then Christ's promise failed.

Forgive me...

what promise? You are alluding to the nonexistant claim of perfection?

 

[kamikat]

what promise? You are alluding to the nonexistant claim of perfection?

Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The Church today is the same Church as it was 2000 years ago and will be the same Church in another 2000 years, if the Lord hasn't come by that time. The Church is the Bride of Christ and He has preserved it intact as He promised.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The Church today is the same Church as it was 2000 years ago and will be the same Church in another 2000 years, if the Lord hasn't come by that time. The Church is the Bride of Christ and He has preserved it intact as He promised.

please tell me how "the gates of hell will not prevail against it" translates to "there will be no error, ever." The passage indicates that his Ekklesia, his gathering of people (note, NOT an orginization, denomination, or institution) wuld never be beaten by the gates of hell, that his true believers would always exist. There is no promise of perfection. Christ alone is perfection. Each person in succession from then until now has made errors, sometimes grevious ones.

and beyond that, the orginizations, both the EO and the RCC have changed drastically. They are not the same as 2000 years ago, no matter how much it is plead to be so.

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

please tell me how "the gates of hell will not prevail against it" translates to "there will be no error, ever." The passage indicates that his Ekklesia, his gathering of people (note, NOT an orginization, denomination, or institution) wuld never be beaten by the gates of hell, that his true believers would always exist. There is no promise of perfection. Christ alone is perfection. Each person in succession from then until now has made errors, sometimes grevious ones.

and beyond that, the orginizations, both the EO and the RCC have changed drastically. They are not the same as 2000 years ago, no matter how much it is plead to be so.

that is true..cause God is NOT stagnant. He is always moving, always revealing things. Thank GOD it isn't the same church as back then...things have moved and progressed in 2000 years!

 

[ScottBot]

what promise? You are alluding to the nonexistant claim of perfection?

And know that I am with you until the end of time. If Christ is with the Church, and the Holy Spirit is guiding and protecting it, how can it fall into error.

 

[ScottBot]

that is true..cause God is NOT stagnant. He is always moving, always revealing things. Thank GOD it isn't the same church as back then...things have moved and progressed in 2000 years!

Where in the bible does it say that God changes? It says quite the opposite, particularly in Isaiah.

 

[Uphill Battle]

And know that I am with you until the end of time. If Christ is with the Church, and the Holy Spirit is guiding and protecting it, how can it fall into error.

again, how does Christ's statement imply perfection?

Christ resides within each believer, yet we are not free from error. The Holy Spirt guides each believer, yet we are not free from error.

nobody is.

Men are free to disregard the HS, and often do. There is no promise that the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church are any different than the rest of us. it simply is not there. (and given the track record of the RCC, proves otherwise.)

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

I think I'm misunderstood, and used a far stronger term than I should. For any offense, I apologize. I do not speak about the individual, I speak about the organization, it expects that you will believe every single thing, and anything without the "orthodox stamp of approval" is deemed untrustworthy.

Now, how would you respond to those whom have done their study, and found Orthodox wanting?

I will constantly seek the truth. If new arguments are presented, I will consider them.

mine. I'm ultimately responsible for educating myself in the matter.

the CHURCH says as much. It matters not if you do. My issue is with no single orthodox person! nor is it with any single member of the RCC. I admire your passion in arguments, and it should be so. I reject the assertion of the RCC and the Orthodox that they have everything right. So, seeing as my argument is not against a man, it can't be ad hominem.

I can only maintain so many arguments at once, and in truth, am growing rather sick of it. I have pondered leaving CF altogether. Anyone who dares challange any of the "one true church" teachings are belittled, and accused of "attacking" as above. So be it.

You are the one who continuously brings up these issues that are nto being addressed here- I have not used the expression "One True Church," nor have I even invoked my Church. It is you who have, again and again. I have and will continue to discuss issues.

You moderate the Debate team. I suspect you understand what appopriate debate etiquette is and is not. My question is why you are at such variance with same.

issue: RCC/Orthodox claim to have all the answers to faith and morals. I reject this.

Fact: the only one who has made this claim on this thread is you. This is a strawman and poor etiquette to boot. The subject was, for example, baptism- not Orthodox Church. I brought up some points on the theology of baptism, and you begin to complain that we think we're the one true Church.
This is absurd.

I call it like I see it. Frankly, I would think that the thought of giving up "perfection" would be a real problem for most.

Just as the thought of always being right, the locus of truth, and you own personal pope is difficult to give up, I assume.

Again, I don't state that any individual didn't do any thinking, just that the expectation is that any non-orthodox teaching is ultimately false, according to the church. And I find this rather dubious, as Orthodox and RCC can't even seem to get their shared history straight.

Yes you did make such accusations: spoon-fed is a HIGHLY condescending and frankly arrogant expression used, as I mentioned, by atheists who call themselves freethinkers and us, of course, as thoughtless, mindless drones. In the very same manner, you tell us we're spoon fed. Who is spoon fed? The enfeebled and infirm. Please do not deflect from the implications of your own statement.

Regarding our alleged inability to set history straight:
Please feel free to challenge me regarding history. You make claim to study, but your statements are full of holes. If you're going to take positions, please specify and prove. Thanks in advance.