Why do people strongly dislike Christians?

[tucker58]

When Christians speak of submission to God's will, what they really mean is not submission to a universally recognized divine will alone, but a specific, authoritative proclamation of God's will mediated via special prophetic revelation. It includes information from the mind of God which goes beyond what mankind may discern from nature or natural law alone. It is a supernaturally revealed truth claim which must be assented to by faith, such that faith itself circularly becomes a virtue in the very act of believing it's true. It requires someone whose vocation is that of preacher, priest, patriarch or prophet to hear the supposed whisper of something called Holy Spirit.

Yet, there is another vocation in which a similar role is played by a mediator who proclaims a message whispered into his ear as special revelation from a source outside himself and not found in the natural world of his audience. It's the job of a ventriloquist.

When Christians talk about submission to god's will, what they expect is for others to follow them in submitting to a form of religious ventriloquism where a spokesman for moral authority symbolically holds a hand puppet of unseen divine mystery up to his ear and reveals to a willing audience what the mind of the great unknown says to him. Those who don’t believe in the invisible message transmitted via clerical or prophetic authority are dismissed as being fleshly, i.e., lacking in imagination. You must be willing to accept the invisible talking puppet as your own personal entertainer or experience torment. But try not to be distracted by the hand puppet for a moment and see what’s actually going on. The only real thing is the puppeteer drawing your attention away from his performance so he can pretend something greater than him is the origin of his message. In my opinion, puppeteers and prophets are the same.

TSD, your argument sounds Atheist, I think that the Atheist folks could learn from you .

One of the Gifts of Jesus was to enable anyone to visit directly with God. No priest, cleric, minister, or prophet needed .

For some reason that particular gift from Jesus is constantly getting lost in the message of those that seem to be guiding Christianity .

TSD, I personally like what you posted and consider it a valid complaint. I actually have the same complaint and I am a Christian.

If I was inclined to be a messenger (guided by God of course), I would have to suggest to some of the Christian Churches that they cut that out. They are messing with one of the gifts that our Lord and Savior has given to those that follow our Lord and Savior.

just love,

reverend tuck

 

[Josiah14]

When Christians speak of submission to God's will, what they really mean is not submission to a universally recognized divine will alone, but a specific, authoritative proclamation of God's will mediated via special prophetic revelation. It includes information from the mind of God which goes beyond what mankind may discern from nature or natural law alone. It is a supernaturally revealed truth claim which must be assented to by faith, such that faith itself becomes a virtue in the very act of believing it's true. It requires someone whose vocation is that of preacher, priest, patriarch or prophet to hear the supposed whisper of something called Holy Spirit.

Yet, there is another vocation in which a similar role is played by a mediator who proclaims a message whispered into his ear as special revelation from a source outside himself and not found in the natural world of his audience. It's the job of a ventriloquist.

When Christians talk about submission to god's will, what they expect is for others to follow them in submitting to a form of religious ventriloquism where a spokesman for moral authority symbolically holds a hand puppet of unseen divine mystery up to his ear and reveals to a willing audience what the mind of the great unknown says to him. Those who don’t believe in the invisible message transmitted via clerical or prophetic authority are dismissed as being fleshly, i.e., lacking in imagination. You must be willing to accept the invisible talking puppet as your own personal entertainer or experience torment. But try not to be distracted by the hand puppet for a moment and see what’s actually going on. The only real thing is the puppeteer drawing your attention away from his performance so he can pretend something greater than him is the origin of his message. In 30 years of my Christian career, I have never found evidence to the contrary. In my opinion, puppeteers and prophets are the same.

That argument works well against Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.

The Orthodox Church is guided as a community, not as individuals. We go by the Church's hostoric and common experience of God, not on any one person's revelation. Yes, we have leaders, elders, and the Jewish Prophets, but all of their writings point to a common experience of God. Therefore, we don't have infallible orators or anything like that (no Pope), but we rely on Christ to lead the community as a whole. Anything that is outside of the common experience of the community is not trusted. Therefore, there's nobody one can point to as the 'puppeteer'. Bishops and Patriarchs have been excommunicated from our Church for straying from the Apostolic Dogma.

 

[Livindesert]

That argument works well against Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.

The Orthodox Church is guided as a community, not as individuals. We go by the Church's hostoric and common experience of God, not on any one person's revelation. Yes, we have leaders, elders, and the Jewish Prophets, but all of their writings point to a common experience of God. Therefore, we don't have infallible orators or anything like that (no Pope), but we rely on Christ to lead the community as a whole. Anything that is outside of the common experience of the community is not trusted. Therefore, there's nobody one can point to as the 'puppeteer'. Bishops and Patriarchs have been excommunicated from our Church for straying from the Apostolic Dogma.

I thought you must have apostolic sucsession to be an Orthodox church? Otherwise would not the Orthodox have to treat independant Orthodox churches the same way they do "recognized" ones?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I thought you must have apostolic sucsession to be an Orthodox church? Otherwise would not the Orthodox have to treat independant Orthodox churches the same way they do "recognized" ones?

I was beginning to think I was on the GT board

http://www.christianforums.com/t7477899-4/
Who is the first Christian to deny Apostolic Succession?

I think it is plain from Clement in the 1st century and Irenaeus in the 2nd, for example, that Apostolic Succession is a true concept. (I would also argue Scripture attests to it, incidentally). But who was the first Christian to object and claim this was not a valid concept?

 

[Tube Socks Dude]

I thought you must have apostolic sucsession to be an Orthodox church?

Or what I would call hierarchically structured successive ventriloquism by ecumenical council.

 

[Tube Socks Dude]

The Orthodox Church is guided as a community, not as individuals. We go by the Church's hostoric and common experience of God, not on any one person's revelation.

Come on now, surely you know that Eastern Christianity has the fingerprints of the Byzantine emperors all over it. There were plenty of strings pulled by the so-called Vicar of Christ long before the Pope of Rome took over the title.

 

[Josiah14]

I thought you must have apostolic sucsession to be an Orthodox church? Otherwise would not the Orthodox have to treat independant Orthodox churches the same way they do "recognized" ones?

Or what I would call hierarchically structured successive ventriloquism by ecumenical council.

Apostolic Succession in the Orthodox Church is determined by who upholds the original faith, dogma, and teachings of the Apostles. It's not like the RCC where it is just some lineage of Popes. If the laity in the Orthodox Church wont go along with the Bishop, chances are the Bishop is in the wrong and he will be excommunicated unless he repents. We go based on the consensus of all the historic teaching of those in the Church, from Christ and the Apostles to present day. If anything at anytime anywhere is found not to be in agreement with how the Apostles and their immediate successors viewed and practiced the Faith, then Apostolic Succession is lost because the Faith handed down from the Apostles has been lost. We dont follow a Patriarchal lineage as much as we follow a lineage of common praxis, teaching, and understanding. The bishops are supposed to be upholders and teachers of the Apostolic Faith, but leadership is not invulnerable to corruption. Rome essential redefined Apostolic Succession to satisfy her own political agenda.

Ecumenical Counsels were held not to define new doctrine, but to plainly and openly establish what the doctrine is that has been handed down from the Apostles. Nothing new is ever proclaimed in Orthodoxy, but, as the Orthodox experience of God is so deep, it couldnt possibly all be written down, so issues are addressed as they come up. We don't try to define every tiny aspect of the religion, we just address the issues we are challenged on.

 

[Livindesert]

Apostolic Succession in the Orthodox Church is determined by who upholds the original faith, dogma, and teachings of the Apostles. It's not like the RCC where it is just some lineage of Popes. If the laity in the Orthodox Church wont go along with the Bishop, chances are the Bishop is in the wrong and he will be excommunicated unless he repents. We go based on the consensus of all the historic teaching of those in the Church, from Christ and the Apostles to present day. If anything at anytime anywhere is found not to be in agreement with how the Apostles and their immediate successors viewed and practiced the Faith, then Apostolic Succession is lost because the Faith handed down from the Apostles has been lost. We dont follow a Patriarchal lineage as much as we follow a lineage of common praxis, teaching, and understanding. The bishops are supposed to be upholders and teachers of the Apostolic Faith, but leadership is not invulnerable to corruption. Rome essential redefined Apostolic Succession to satisfy her own political agenda.

Ecumenical Counsels were held not to define new doctrine, but to plainly and openly establish what the doctrine is that has been handed down from the Apostles. Nothing new is ever proclaimed in Orthodoxy, but, as the Orthodox experience of God is so deep, it couldnt possibly all be written down, so issues are addressed as they come up. We don't try to define every tiny aspect of the religion, we just address the issues we are challenged on.

So then a non-apostolic linage church can be recognized as Orthodox?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

So then a non-apostolic linage church can be recognized as Orthodox?

I would think that would be with a small "o".
For example, on CF there are those who are "orthodox" and those who are "un-orthodox"
Those outside of "orthodoxy" have to post on a different board [such as the JWs and Mormons]. Thoughts?

http://www.christianforums.com/f130/
Unorthodox Theology

 

[Tube Socks Dude]

Apostolic Succession in the Orthodox Church is determined by who upholds the original faith, dogma, and teachings of the Apostles.

Apostles, prophets, same thing. You have no proof their dogma didn't come from the same place Jim Henson got his Muppet movie scripts.

 

[Josiah14]

Come on now, surely you know that Eastern Christianity has the fingerprints of the Byzantine emperors all over it. There were plenty of strings pulled by the so-called Vicar of Christ long before the Pope of Rome took over the title.

We excommunicated the Pope of Rome for claiming authority over the other Churchs. The historical position of Rome was 'First Among Equals', or otherwise, the tie-breaker. The Franks came in and kicked the Roman Patriarch out of his seat and replaced him with a more politically advantageous Patriarch when Germany was being evangelized to. Rome's claim to superior authority over the other Churches was a political move that was a result from a corruption of the Roman Patriarchate. Rome was excommunicated from the Apostolic Church in 1054 for this and other reasons. The idea of a Vicar of Christ has never been accepted in the Orthodox Churches, ever. If you doubt this, consider that the Oriental and the Eastern Orthodox Churches both agree here, and we are not in communion with each other, though we are both ancient Churches.

The Byzantine Emperers did a lot of bad things, but the core Dogmatic teachings of the Church were not altered by the Emperors. The most that happened was that the Emperors called a Counsel to force the Church to publish an official written consensus in an attempt to ease religions tensions within the Empire.

 

[Tube Socks Dude]

The most that happened was that the Emperors called a Counsel to force the Church to publish an official written consensus in an attempt to ease religions tensions within the Empire.

He forced them to vote before he forced them to publish. Then he enforced their legislative consensus by the sword. So much for the universal experience of God. It was always top down and hierarchical.

 

[Josiah14]

So then a non-apostolic linage church can be recognized as Orthodox?

Actually, yes, I think. A Church which adheres to all the teachings of the Apostles and does not add anything to them can be brought into communion with the Eastern Orthodox by a consensus of all the autocephelous Churches. If the Church being brought into communion is large enough, they may become their own autocephelous Church with its own organizational structure to suit its needs.

Normally what happens, though, is if a small group of Christian Churches is brought into communion with the Eastern Orthodox, as happened with the Protestant Evangelical Orthodox Churches (lead by Fr. Peter Gilquest), is that that group of Churches will be grafted into an existing autocephelous Church.

 

[Tube Socks Dude]

The Byzantine Emperers did a lot of bad things, but the core Dogmatic teachings of the Church were not altered by the Emperors.

Justinian forced the Church to condemn Origen.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Actually, yes, I think. A Church which adheres to all the teachings of the Apostles and does not add anything to them can be brought into communion with the Eastern Orthodox by a consensus of all the autocephelous Churches. If the Church being brought into communion is large enough, they may become their own autocephelous Church with its own organizational structure to suit its needs.

Normally what happens, though, is if a small group of Christian Churches is brought into communion with the Eastern Orthodox, as happened with the Protestant Evangelical Orthodox Churches (lead by Fr. Peter Gilquest), is that that group of Churches will be grafted into an existing autocephelous Church.

LLOJ once again heads for Wiki

Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon

Search Wikipedia Encyclopedia:

Autocephaly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Autocephalous)

Autocephaly, in hierarchical Christian churches and especially Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches, is the status of a hierarchical church whose head bishop does not report to any higher-ranking bishop.
When an ecumenical council or a high-ranking bishop, such as a patriarch or other primate, releases an ecclesiastical province from the authority of that bishop while the newly independent church remains in full communion with the hierarchy to which it then ceases to belong, the council or primate is granting autocephaly.

 

[Livindesert]

Actually, yes, I think. A Church which adheres to all the teachings of the Apostles and does not add anything to them can be brought into communion with the Eastern Orthodox by a consensus of all the autocephelous Churches. If the Church being brought into communion is large enough, they may become their own autocephelous Church with its own organizational structure to suit its needs.

Normally what happens, though, is if a small group of Christian Churches is brought into communion with the Eastern Orthodox, as happened with the Protestant Evangelical Orthodox Churches (lead by Fr. Peter Gilquest), is that that group of Churches will be grafted into an existing autocephelous Church.

O.k. I think I get it.

 

[Josiah14]

He forced them to vote before he forced them to publish. Then he enforced their legislative consensus by the sword. So much for the universal experience of God. It was always top down and hierarchical.

That's bad logic. Just because they were forced to vote, that doesnt invalidate the Counsel's consensus on the issues voted on. Further, the Emperor himself did not sway the vote, to my knowledge. I don't know if he could have, as a lot of the people present at the Counsels were willing to die for the Faith (and some did die for the Faith). Mind you, at this period in history, the Christians were well aware that they could be tortured and killed for what they believed. If you can provide evidence that he did force the vote in one direction, I will try to find a reasonable response to your argument.

Those are some stiff accusations your making, TSD, you'd better be ready to support them with historical evidence.

 

[Josiah14]

Justinian forced the Church to condemn Origen.

Are you just going to continue making accusations about who forced what without providing any citation?

Origen was condemns by many Early Church Fathers for what he taught. Further, if you read Origen, the teachings he was excommunicated for are not found in the teachings of the other Church Fathers before or after him within the Apostolic Church.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Are you just going to continue making accusations about who forced what without providing any citation?

Origen was condemns by many Early Church Fathers for what he taught. Further, if you read Origen, the teachings he was excommunicated for are not found in the teachings of the other Church Fathers before or after him within the Apostolic Church.

Now you have me interested in studying on him.

Origen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Origen (Greek: Ὠριγένης Ōrigénēs, or Origen Adamantius, c. 185–254[1]) was an early Christian scholar and theologian, and one of the most distinguished writers of the early Christian Church despite not being considered a Church father by some.[2] According to tradition, he is held to have been an Egyptian[3] who taught in Alexandria, reviving the Catechetical School of Alexandria where Clement of Alexandria had taught.[4]
The patriarch of Alexandria at first supported Origen but later expelled him for being ordained without the patriarch's permission.[5] He relocated to Caesarea Maritima and died there after being tortured during a persecution.[6]

 

[Josiah14]

Apostles, prophets, same thing. You have no proof their dogma didn't come from the same place Jim Henson got his Muppet movie scripts.

No, there's plenty of proof in the miracles of the Church, but I dont expect you to accept that. (Holy Fire, Cloud of Transfiguration, Reverse of Jordan River, weeping/gushing icons, fragrant relics, Saints being transfigured in the Divine Light, etc.).

Besides, Christianity has always said that God is known by a spiritual revelation to the soul, not through empiracle scientific means. If you want scientific proof of God beyond miracles you wont get it, because God is beyond the material world and not bound by its laws and restrictions. I can't prove to you that God exists any more than I can prove to one doubting my existance that I exist.