Why I'm Orthodox . . . and why others may want to be too.

CaDan · Dec 10, 2005

Who's up for ice cream? It is yummy and delicious!

I have some frozen tofu for those of you fasting fom dairy, too. You can hardly taste the tofu!

Albion · Dec 10, 2005

Do you deny the RC teaches infallibility of the Pope, Papal Supremecy, original sin, substitutionary atonement, purgatory, and indulgences?

thereselittleflower said:
I am CHALLANGING YOUR NEGATIVE STATEMENTS AGAINST MY CHURCH!

Where is the OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE to back up all these things you say are concrete?

You have presented NO Objective Evidence . . just your poorly informed personal opinion . . .

This seems simple enough to settle. You are objecting to a question being asked when an answer to it would seem to be the way to go.

I mean, if the Roman Catholic Church DOES NOT teach infallibility of the Pope, Papal Supremecy, original sin, substitutionary atonement, purgatory, and indulgences, it should be easy enough to substantiate from the Catrechism or the Catholic Encyclopedia, for instance. Or you could start us off with by answering the question in the negative and pointing out what the Roman Catholic Church does teacch and believe regarding Purgatory and Original Sin, for instance.

vanshan · Dec 10, 2005

Iollain said:
If certain 'christians' wouldn't have used force instead of their mouth, you know your one true church would have not been.

Which worship do you think God likes more, a person singing their heart out to the Lord with their hands raised or someone kissing an old painting?

I think the force your are thinking of was the frequent force used by the Roman Catholic Church when it assumed a role as wordly power in the darkest hour after it's anathema out of the One True Church. I am not Roman Catholic, so I don't think your comments apply. (Of course any over-zealous worldy power who may have been Orthodox could have tried to force the Christian faith on others, but that doesn't make the Church itself corrupt--that would just be the sin of that ruler. Don't forget those Puritan's who we remembered last month put people to death for immorality--so trying to force faith on others is a crime commited my many individuals).

To your final question let me phrase it a little differently. Which worship do you think God likes more: a person self-indulgently singing "worship" songs to gratify their own emotional needs through carefully orchestrated, manmade worship services, or someone who loves and reveres God so greatly that they even approach holy images of Christ, trace the sign of His Holy Cross over themselves in adoration of Him, and lovingly kiss the icon, which is a physical symbol of He who sits at the right hand of God the Father, worshipping according to the way that Christ Himself passed down in His Church, in which men are united to Christ through communion at each service, by a miracle of God's Spirit.

Worship was created to praise God, inspire adoration, and to mystically make us one with Christ, which is done through communion. Any ecstatic worship and clever preaching is empty without the ability to bring the Holy Things to God's people through a valid communion. Otherwise they are just singing and talking, but are not leading people into the Life in Christ God had brought to mankind in Christ. They entire point of Christ's Incarnation is lost--those churches are then irrelevant to men. It would be better to stay home and watch nature programs on PBS and be inspired by God's wonder, than to be deluded to think the preachers in those churches are really giving you all Christ has to give.

Basil

CaDan · Dec 10, 2005

There is plenty of blood to go around, on all sides.

vanshan · Dec 10, 2005

Longing4Home said:
Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, etc...Let us see what the bible has to say of this matter:
1 Cor. 1:10-17

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Clearly, we are not to argue over which denomination is right. Christ is the only one who is right! And if we truly go about His work, in a way that is pleasing to Him, it does matter to what human institution you say you belong, as long as you are one of His children. I think satan is mighty pleased that there is more arguing among the children of God than there is the Children of God going out an saving souls from the devil.

Your brother in Christ,
Glen

Glen, inadvertantly you have given the best argument againt the existence of separate denominations. We are all required to be in One Holy Church together, not divided into disagreeing sects. Now which Church has preserved the unchanged teachings of Christ?

Read Acts and Paul's letters, and if you are adventureous the writings of St. Ignatius, Irenaeus, and other very early Church fathers. How did they say the Apostles taught them to worhip? Then visit a Catholic Mass first and foremost! After that visit an English speaking Orthodox parish in your area. Now what do you think? Did one seem to be more like that ancient Church Christ established? Everyone should spend an ounce of effort in sacrifice to Christ to find the Truth for themselves.

Basil

vanshan · Dec 10, 2005

CaDan said:
I smell . . .

[size=+2]filioque[/size]

Please, no one else use that strawman! It is one distortion of the orthodox view of the Holy Trinity, but by far not the core of the division or difference between the Roman Catholics and the Universal Orthodox Church.

Basil

Benedicta00 · Dec 10, 2005

Iollain said:
Here we go again........God forbid that a preacher should preach, God forbid that people might enjoy a praise and worship song...give me a break. If certain 'christians' wouldn't have used force instead of their mouth, you know your one true church would have not been.

Which worship do you think God likes more, a person singing their heart out to the Lord with their hands raised or someone kissing an old painting?

But kissing an old painting isnt their worship. Yes, here we go again with the misconceptions.

vanshan · Dec 10, 2005

CaDan said:
There is plenty of blood to go around, on all sides.

Yes. Any man can sin . . . and there may be occasions when God has actually led soldiers to defeat enemies who have attacked or threated God's People. I know we have soldiers who are saint, so there must be times when shedding blood in this temporal life is necessary. I cannot undestand it, but it is not different than the slaughters of the Old Testament. Sometimes God's people must be protected against evil, but in the Roman Catholic faith, I think they acted as the aggressors in many acts of violent bloodshed, such as the Crusades, the Inquisition, war in Europe, treatment of the natives in the America's, etc.

Blood on all sides, but what were the circumstances?

Basil

CaDan · Dec 10, 2005

vanshan said:
Please, no one else use that strawman! It is one distortion of the orthodox view of the Holy Trinity, but by far not the core of the division or difference between the Roman Catholics and the Universal Orthodox Church.

Basil

I'm jes' messin' with ya' a bit!

I know we have differences, but we also have the unity of Christ. Simultaneous with our differences. Is Christ divided?

Let us put on the mind of Christ and talk, then.

Benedicta00 · Dec 10, 2005

vanshan said:
Yes. Any man can sin . . . and there may be occasions when God has actually led soldiers to defeat enemies who have attacked or threated God's People. I know we have soldiers who are saint, so there must be times when shedding blood in this temporal life is necessary. I cannot undestand it, but it is not different than the slaughters of the Old Testament. Sometimes God's people must be protected against evil, but in the Roman Catholic faith, I think they acted as the aggressors in many acts of violent bloodshed, such as the Crusades, the Inquisition, war in Europe, treatment of the natives in the America's, etc.

Blood on all sides, but what were the circumstances?

Basil

FYI, you're going to lose this one if youre going to claim the EO acted holy in all circumstances, they're is blood on your hands now

vanshan · Dec 10, 2005

thereselittleflower said:
You have made accusations against MY Church . . you have made NEGATIVE STATEMENTS AGAINST my Church . . .

Therese, this is not the Church you think it is. You have said youself that you were Orthodox as a child--it is time to come home. You may have left for the best of reasons, thinking you were finding the true Church, but you've been misled, just as I was misled by slick preachers who ripped out 10 verses a minute to prove heterodox points. We are all subject to mistakes.

I don't want to attack anyone. I want to mercifully hold up the truth to hopefully encourage others to expend an tiny bit of effort outside their comfortable place in Christianity to consider that Christ may have established something unchanging, untrendy, unending--a real Body that contains God's people, not thousands of disputing denominations. One Body that is here to bring us each into the Kingdom of God, uniting us to Christ in communion.

Basil

CaDan · Dec 10, 2005

vanshan said:
Yes. Any man can sin . . . and there may be occasions when God has actually led soldiers to defeat enemies who have attacked or threated God's People. I know we have soldiers who are saint, so there must be times when shedding blood in this temporal life is necessary. I cannot undestand it, but it is not different than the slaughters of the Old Testament. Sometimes God's people must be protected against evil, but in the Roman Catholic faith, I think they acted as the aggressors in many acts of violent bloodshed, such as the Crusades, the Inquisition, war in Europe, treatment of the natives in the America's, etc.

Blood on all sides, but what were the circumstances?

Basil

The circumstances? Does it matter? Legions of the dead, all fallen in battle, dwell within this earth of ours. Their stern voices urge us all to return at once to harmony, unity, and a just peace.

Albion · Dec 10, 2005

vanshan said:
Worship was created to praise God, inspire adoration, and to mystically make us one with Christ, which is done through communion. Any ecstatic worship and clever preaching is empty without the ability to bring the Holy Things to God's people through a valid communion.

An interesting theological treatise in condensed form--not a definition of "worship." Remember that in the Bible people who were not disciples of Jesus are described as having "worshipped" him. Obviously, the meaning of the word is not confined to what you were envisioning above. If those people did not have the faith but still could have "worshipped" Jesus, we need to think again (not just 'who you are addressing is what matters,' etc. as is so often said)

vanshan · Dec 10, 2005

Shelb5 said:
FYI, you're going to lose this one if youre going to claim the EO acted holy in all circumstances, they're is blood on your hands now

Really, where? Don't make an accusation and leave us all guessing--some may suppose worse things than the truth. Which conflict or bloodshed are you referring to?

What about the conflict in Serbia not too many years ago. Allegedly, they were trying to commit genocide by killing the poor Muslim minority, but why did they do it? The encroachment of the Muslims has threated the peace of the Serbian land. The Muslims clearly hope to bring the world under the yoke of their god Allah. They still commit acts of violence againt monasteries, Churches, and Christians in that land. Is it ever okay for God's people to defend themselves from an evil foe?

America certainly has mastered justifying violence against our enemies to protect ourselves as Americans--so how much more justifiable may it be for God's People, who are much more important than us as Americans, to defend themselves by destroying their enemies?

Let's talk about the Greek and Armenian genocide, commited by the Mulims in Turkey in the late 19th and early 20th century which killed hundreds of thousands of Christians in Turkey, displacing many Orthodox Greeks from lands that had been Christians since Christ. Sometimes it may be okay to kill to protect ourselves from being the victims of genocide ourselves.

Basil

vanshan · Dec 10, 2005

Albion said:
An interesting theological treatise in condensed form--not a definition of "worship." Remember that in the Bible people who were not disciples of Jesus are described as having "worshipped" him. Obviously, the meaning of the word is not confined to what you were envisioning above. If those people did not have the faith but still could have "worshipped" Jesus, we need to think again (not just 'who you are addressing is what matters,' etc. as is so often said)

We know that those who believed and worshipped Christ were baptized and brought into the Church, or fell away from belief. Different communities of faith did not continue, but they were all under one collegial system of bishops leading the Church together, spreading the gospel throughout the earth.

Basil

Albion · Dec 10, 2005

vanshan said:
Really, where? Don't make an accusation and leave us all guessing--some may suppose worse things than the truth. Which conflict or bloodshed are you referring to?

What about the conflict in Serbia not too many years ago. Allegedly, they were trying to commit genocide by killing the poor Croatians, but why did they do it? The encroachment of the Muslim Croats has threated the peace of the Serbian land. The Muslims clearly hope to bring the world under the yoke of their god Allah. They still commit acts of violence againt monasteries, Churches, and Christians in that land. Is it ever okay for God's people to defend themselves from an evil foe?

America certainly has mastered justifying violence against our enemies to protect ourselves as Americans--so how much more justifiable may it be for God's People, who are much more important than us as Americans, to defend themselves by destroying their enemies?

Let's talk about the Greek and Armenian genocide, commited by the Mulims in Turkey in the late 19th and early 20th century which killed hundreds of thousands of Christians in Turkey, displacing many Orthodox Greeks from lands that had been Christians since Christ. Sometimes it may be okay to kill to protect ourselves from being the victims of genocide ourselves.

Basil

Not to make this worse, but weren't the Croats in there somewhere? The ethnic cleansing leading to today's Tribunals in the Netherlands weren't all about defending Serbs from Muslims, right?

Overall, I think you have a point to make, but everyone has some history that doesn't cover them with glory.

Albion · Dec 10, 2005

vanshan said:
We know that those who believed and worshipped Christ were baptized and brought into the Church, or fell away from belief. Different communities of faith did not continue, but they were all under one collegial system of bishops leading the Church togehter, spreading the gospel throughout the earth.

Basil

Then, apparently, you DON'T remember that the Bible records people who "worshipped"--to quote the scriptures--Jesus but were not disciples, not people whom we have any reason to think were devotees or disciples of his.

So...worship is not just limited in the ways that we often want to limit it.

vanshan · Dec 10, 2005

Albion said:
Not to make this worse, but weren't the Croats in there somewhere? The ethnic cleansing leading to today's Tribunals in the Netherlands weren't all about defending Serbs from Muslims, right?

Overall, I think you have a point to make, but everyone has some history that doesn't cover them with glory.

The confilct in Serbia was between Muslims and Christians. The news rarely mentioned them by religion, as that is politically incorrect, and may have actually caused more Americans to actually support the Serbs, who by the way saved many pilots from the Nazis in WW II. They corageously protected us from our worst enemy, Hitler, but then in their hour of need, we actually defended their enemy the Muslim Croats.

Basil

vanshan · Dec 10, 2005

Albion said:
Then, apparently, you DON'T remember that the Bible records people who "worshipped"--to quote the scriptures--Jesus but were not disciples, not people whom we have any reason to think were devotees or disciples of his.

So...worship is not just limited in the ways that we often want to limit it.

Yes, I think I do remember, but what do you think happened to them next? Do you think they set up congregationalist churches thus becoming an independent denomination? Christ came to inspire faith, so we would be baptized into His Church and be mystcally yoked to him in the Eucharistic Thanksgiving. He became man, so that we men could become like God. Life in the Church lead us to this goal of theosis.

Basil

CaDan · Dec 10, 2005

Umm . . .

It is my recollection that the Croats are mostly Catholic. 'Tis the Bosnians that tend to be Muslim.

And the blood of all of them cries from the ground.

Why I'm Orthodox . . . and why others may want to be too.

I remember orange CF

Facilitator

A Sinner

I remember orange CF

A Sinner

A Sinner

Well-Known Member

A Sinner

I remember orange CF

Well-Known Member

A Sinner

I remember orange CF

Facilitator

A Sinner

A Sinner

Facilitator

Facilitator

A Sinner

A Sinner

I remember orange CF

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency