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

[InnerPhyre]

Do not talk to me as though I am in sunday school. You are simply making things up and placing puzzle pieces together that do not fit. All bishops are NOT equal in the Roman Church. Bishop Lynch in FL is not equal in authority to the Pope. If you think our differences are just in semantics, you need to get back to your roots and do a bit more reading because you have no understanding of Orthodoxy. Theological differences aside (which are vast...most of which revolve around the nature of God and sin) the Orthodox will never accept the authority of the Pope. Never. Reunion is just fine. When all the Catholic Church converts to Orthodoxy we will have reunion. Short of that, we're quite happy to stay true to our faith without compromise and let those who will take it take it and those who will leave it, leave it. If that sounds harsh, it's not. The Pope asks the same of the Orthodox...to come under his loving authority and submit to him.

I told you that I did not come here to debate theology. I will not debate theology in here until after Christmas.

I suppose you were likely banned during the time when I announced I was leaving the RCC. I had several people tell me in OBOB that I would go to hell if I left the church, so don't think that only comes from one side. I also got a healthy dose of "I hope you do not die in schism." lol.

As for drifting after the schism, we certainly did drift apart after that, but it began long long before. I'm not going to debate the specifics of this here. Ask me on 12/26.

I can only tell you this. After having discovered Orthodoxy, I know that I am home. Where else could I go? I have found Christ's Church. I would rather die than go back. I mean that in all sincerity. I would rather die.

 

[joyfulthanks]

You know .. I knew it was you I was talking to, but for some reason it didn't translate right from my brain to my fingers . . like typing one word when you mean another . .

Honestly, my brain does not see it until much later when I catch such things and wonder how the heck I did that . ..

It was totally unconcious and unitentional . . . But I did mean to be addresing you GraceMercyPeace.


Peace to all

No problem, therese. And I really, truly meant what I said about my other post having nothing at all to do with you personally. I apparently just picked a bad time to post my thoughts on the one true church thing. It was really just a general post, quite unrelated to this thread, except for the fact that I wrongly thought that I might use what you guys might be feeling about this thread as an example of how I sometimes feel.

I liked the way you approached your last couple of posts. Rather than asking for evidence, you gave some of your own. I thought that was a really great way to approach things.

Blessed Advent!

With love in Christ,
Grace

 

[GraceInHim]

TLF - is a good debater, and of course with all the threads against her church, I do not blame her for doing what she does, but she does have a heart - I have experienced her kindness before; gotta say, she is a staunch defender, kinda like what my Mother is... take that as a nice way, my Mom is great....

 

[Canadian75]

Do not talk to me as though I am in sunday school. You are simply making things up and placing puzzle pieces together that do not fit. All bishops are NOT equal in the Roman Church. Bishop Lynch in FL is not equal in authority to the Pope. If you think our differences are just in semantics, you need to get back to your roots and do a bit more reading because you have no understanding of Orthodoxy. Theological differences aside (which are vast...most of which revolve around the nature of God and sin) the Orthodox will never accept the authority of the Pope. Never. Reunion is just fine. When all the Catholic Church converts to Orthodoxy we will have reunion. Short of that, we're quite happy to stay true to our faith without compromise and let those who will take it take it and those who will leave it, leave it. If that sounds harsh, it's not. The Pope asks the same of the Orthodox...to come under his loving authority and submit to him.

I told you that I did not come here to debate theology. I will not debate theology in here until after Christmas.

I suppose you were likely banned during the time when I announced I was leaving the RCC. I had several people tell me in OBOB that I would go to hell if I left the church, so don't think that only comes from one side. I also got a healthy dose of "I hope you do not die in schism." lol.

As for drifting after the schism, we certainly did drift apart after that, but it began long long before. I'm not going to debate the specifics of this here. Ask me on 12/26.

I can only tell you this. After having discovered Orthodoxy, I know that I am home. Where else could I go? I have found Christ's Church. I would rather die than go back. I mean that in all sincerity. I would rather die.

Dude, that's twice I've wanted to rep you....IN THE SAME THREAD! And all that without breaking your vow not to debate 'till Christmas.


Peace.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Do not talk to me as though I am in sunday school. You are simply making things up and placing puzzle pieces together that do not fit. All bishops are NOT equal in the Roman Church. Bishop Lynch in FL is not equal in authority to the Pope. If you think our differences are just in semantics, you need to get back to your roots and do a bit more reading because you have no understanding of Orthodoxy. Theological differences aside (which are vast...most of which revolve around the nature of God and sin) the Orthodox will never accept the authority of the Pope. Never. Reunion is just fine. When all the Catholic Church converts to Orthodoxy we will have reunion. Short of that, we're quite happy to stay true to our faith without compromise and let those who will take it take it and those who will leave it, leave it. If that sounds harsh, it's not. The Pope asks the same of the Orthodox...to come under his loving authority and submit to him.

I told you that I did not come here to debate theology. I will not debate theology in here until after Christmas.

I suppose you were likely banned during the time when I announced I was leaving the RCC. I had several people tell me in OBOB that I would go to hell if I left the church, so don't think that only comes from one side. I also got a healthy dose of "I hope you do not die in schism." lol.

As for drifting after the schism, we certainly did drift apart after that, but it began long long before. I'm not going to debate the specifics of this here. Ask me on 12/26.

I can only tell you this. After having discovered Orthodoxy, I know that I am home. Where else could I go? I have found Christ's Church. I would rather die than go back. I mean that in all sincerity. I would rather die.

InnerPhyre . . if you don't want to debate, then please don't debate and dont' offer posts that are debative in style.

If you don't want to debate until after Christmas, perhaps it is better if you stay out of GT until then . . .


And how you feel about Orthodoxy, is how I feel about Catholicism. . . .

I hope you have a blessed Advent InneryPhyre . . . may God richly bless you during this time and as Christ is born with us . . .



Peace to all

 

[InnerPhyre]

I said I will not get into theological debates. What I HAVE been debating all along is simply that we have our differences and they should not be diminished and it is insulting to both sides to do so Others have been saying "We're right! No WE'RE right! Nuh uh nuh uh. WE'RE right." I want no part of that. God bless you as well.

 

[Loukuss]

Interesting thread!

Things I noticed:

orthodoxy christians here have made a very clam and persuassive case for themselves. I'm going to read more about it, as I found myself agreeing with a lot of things you had to say.
the catholics here - one in particular - responded in poor fashion. catholics, may i have your attention for a second.... every time someone doesnt agree with your theology, it doesnt mean its time to go off the deep end and get your feathers all rustled up. I see that far too often here in GT. And, as someone already said, dont let someone's argument cause you too stumble. If you're like this with fellow brother and sisters in Christ, how do you approach atheists and other seeks of Christ? Do you combat them with these gems? I sure hope not. I dont want to imagine you many people you would have scared away from God with such tactics.

As for the OP title "Why I'm orthodox...and why others may want to be too"....I might to be too. I've tried every other church and rarely felt that it was God's "home" for me.

Maybe this could be it? I dont know, but I'm willing to find out.

God bless,
Lucas

 

[NPH]

Interesting thread!

Things I noticed:

orthodoxy christians here have made a very clam and persuassive case for themselves. I'm going to read more about it, as I found myself agreeing with a lot of things you had to say.
the catholics here - one in particular - responded in poor fashion. catholics, may i have your attention for a second.... every time someone doesnt agree with your theology, it doesnt mean its time to go off the deep end and get your feathers all rustled up. I see that far too often here in GT. And, as someone already said, dont let someone's argument cause you too stumble. If you're like this with fellow brother and sisters in Christ, how do you approach atheists and other seeks of Christ? Do you combat them with these gems? I sure hope not. I dont want to imagine you many people you would have scared away from God with such tactics.

As for the OP title "Why I'm orthodox...and why others may want to be too"....I might to be too. I've tried every other church and rarely felt that it was God's "home" for me.

Maybe this could be it? I dont know, but I'm willing to find out.

God bless,
Lucas

Interesting, but conversely I see the thread in a similar way to what was described in the post by Perceivence.

The thread was started including a thinly veiled jab at the Catholic Church, which was somewhat admitted later as a way for Orthodoxy to prove itself as the "true church" ... by showing the errors of others. Protestants were only slightly jabbed at, but in a way that was surrounded by praise of them for rejecting the Catholic Church. The focus in those two paragraphs remained on the 'error' of the Catholic Church.

Later a Catholic, in defense of claims made against her church, asked for evidence of those claims. Instead she was told that her soul was in jeopardy for not being in the Orthodox Church. The request for evidence was ignored and subsequent EO posters only chided her for making such a request and commenting on her 'temper'.

It seems the whole point of this thread was to say "Orthodox are good, Catholics are bad" and then once a Catholic responded as expected it became pile-on time.

Ah well. In my personal consideration of what would be the "true church" that I could call home I had narrowed it down to Episcopal, Catholic and Orthodox. But if the claims of Orthodoxy are simply that they are not Catholic then it seems I can remove them from my list. That is simply not a good argument at all. I was actually very interested in the OP until it made claims about another church without ever giving any evidence regarding those claims, I had hoped to actually see a reason why I should consider the Orthodox church over others.

But that's just how I saw it. YMMV.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Posting links that force one to read through copios amounts of material is not the same as providng objective evidence . . . . .

I'm going to use this statement to ask a general question to whom and to all it may concern. What should we view as acceptible objective evidence within debates here at GT?

I can become annoyed sometimes when I ask for odjective evidence and then given links upon links that requires hours and even days of reading and study time. Yet at the same time people demand documentation and I've seen in the past where someone has cut and pasted out of a website the required documentation but only to be argued and debated endlessly that the proper context is wrong.

Is there really any such thing as objective evidence? And if so, where do we find it? Who has this objective evidence that we can agree is truely objective?

 

[NPH]

I'm going to use this statement to ask a general question to whom and to all it may concern. What should we view as acceptible objective evidence within debates here at GT?

I can become annoyed sometimes when I ask for odjective evidence and then given links upon links that requires hours and even days of reading and study time. Yet at the same time people demand documentation and I've seen in the past where someone has cut and pasted out of a website the required documentation but only to be argued and debated endlessly that the proper context is wrong.

Is there really any such thing as objective evidence? And if so, where do we find it? Who has this objective evidence that we can agree is truely objective?

I would think that links are good, but they should be in addition to a personal summary of what will be found in those links written by the person posting those links (not a copy/paste except when posting specific documents such as the dreaded Unam Sanctum, and even then with explanation).

When I see just a link with nothing explaining what is to be found in those links I just breeze past the post. If you can't take the time to personalize or personally explain your beliefs then I don't feel obliged to take the time to sift through it all myself.

Also, breaking long posts into multiple smaller posts is much easier to digest. This is all just IMO though, everyone do as you please (and so will I)

 

[nephilimiyr]

I would think that links are good, but they should be in addition to a personal summary of what will be found in those links written by the person posting those links (not a copy/paste except when posting specific documents such as the dreaded Unam Sanctum, and even then with explanation).

I agree, good point, and yet the debate goes on because personal summaries and or opinions are debateable.

When I see just a link with nothing explaining what is to be found in those links I just breeze past the post. If you can't take the time to personalize or personally explain your beliefs then I don't feel obliged to take the time to sift through it all myself.

I mostly do the same as you. I've found where after I have clicked onto the link I'm at a website where I could click onto dozens upon dozens of pages and still not arrive at the information that the poster wants me to read. Either way, I do want and require the poster to explain to me what I am about to read.

Also, breaking long posts into multiple smaller posts is much easier to digest. This is all just IMO though, everyone do as you please (and so will I)

I totally agree with this statement of yours, perhaps that's just our opinion though?

I still have a question as to what is acceptible objective evidence. Isn't the term "objective" in the eye of the beholder?

 

[Espada]

I actually posted this in another thread, but I don't really want to derail that thread. Here's my thoughts. please feel free to challenge anything:

When did the one Church become two, then two dozen, then a thousand, then tens of thousands? If fragmentation is such a good thing, why didn't Christ start planting independent Churches immediately when He walked among us? Why didn't he establish denominations, with each having autonomy to interpret the gospel independently from the other denominations or even each congregation? Why did Paul exhort the early Christians to hold fast to the oral and written traditions that they passed down to them, if every congregation was meant to have autonomy to read and interpret scripture for themselves?

Christ didn't establish any one church. The fragmentation actually started almost immediately and has continued ever since. The diversity that existed in the begining was far greater than exists now, certainly in terms of what people believed. This variety continued until Rome was Chrisianised. Even at that point there were other churches outside of Rome's sphere of influence, e.g. China and Mongolia, both of which had early Christian communities as a result of the silk road.

Christ didn't establish multiple denominations! To say so would be complete nonsense, which only an ahistorical bafoon could defend. Christ came to create a new covenant with God's people. He came to rescue the captives by conquering death. He came to reveal God to us. This revelation is no secret, although through the foggy filter of years of historical divisions, corruptions, and fragmentation the truth has been hidden from many of us.

Very true Christ did not create multiple denominations, early believers continued to be part of the Jewish faith until they were kicked out by the Jews.

The early church was more than intellectually stimulating sermons and emotionally titilating worship, it was participation in the reality of life in Christ. Life as One Body, with Christ as it's head. A miraculous union of heaven and earth was experienced in each worship service, where men mystically were united to Christ, through communion.

Which particular early Church are we talking about here? In most cases the worship would be closest to that of the Quakers than any other denomination.

Variety has always been a part of the church and will remain so, people are different and worship God in different ways. I am sure you are happy with Orthodoxy and I would not seek to change you.

Remember what Paul says in Romans 14, I will include the first few verses to remind those who have forgotten.

1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

There are differences and we should accept them.

 

[Benedicta00]

I'm sorry that this thread has gone the direction it has gone. Everyone forgive me. It is not Therese's fault, I did say things that were obviously inflammatory to her.



Basil

Not just to her but to all Catholics. Like I said, all I ever see is a bunch of false humility.

 

[vanshan]

As for the OP title "Why I'm orthodox...and why others may want to be too"....I might to be too. I've tried every other church and rarely felt that it was God's "home" for me.

Maybe this could be it? I dont know, but I'm willing to find out.

God bless,
Lucas

I pray God may bless you journey, Lucas. I think you post was very charitable, thanks.

I am definitely a weak vessel, not able to defend the truth adequately, but I pray others might see through my bumbling attempts and see at least a small glimmer of Christ's light in Orthodoxy.

Exlaining Orthodoxy does require contrasting it against other groups, but the first link I gave in an earlier post does give a good synopsis of what those Apostolic teachings are that have been preserved in Orthodoxy. There is plent to be said about what we believe, rather than what we don't believe, but to lessen the negative association some have between the Roman Catholic faith and Orthodoxy, I admit I do spend some time pointing out that we reject many of the problematic doctrines of the Roman Catholics. I cannot hope to win friends among the Roman Catholics with such an approach, but if any discover what me and others already have, then the controvery will not be in vain.

Basil

 

[thereselittleflower]

[/i]
I'm going to use this statement to ask a general question to whom and to all it may concern. What should we view as acceptible objective evidence within debates here at GT?

I can become annoyed sometimes when I ask for odjective evidence and then given links upon links that requires hours and even days of reading and study time. Yet at the same time people demand documentation and I've seen in the past where someone has cut and pasted out of a website the required documentation but only to be argued and debated endlessly that the proper context is wrong.

Is there really any such thing as objective evidence? And if so, where do we find it? Who has this objective evidence that we can agree is truely objective?

I think there are somethings that are truly objective . . . I think there are somethings that can be presented as objective but may not be . . .

I think the point is that evidence is presented so one is not merely stating their personal opinoin inflamming others, for then you can get into a flame war . . . If evidence is presented, at least then that evidence can be examined etc and there is a place to start some form of reasonable discussion . . . .


Peace to all

 

[thereselittleflower]

I agree, good point, and yet the debate goes on because personal summaries and or opinions are debateable.

Well, everything that is presented is debatable unless it is so obvious on its face, such as the sun rises in the east . . . .

But I agree, summaries, while helpful, are not evidence from outside oen's self, so is a subjective rendering of the evidence . . . Presenting the quotes one is relying on is preseenting evidence from outside one's self, and thus more objective than presenting one's own summary . .

Objective does not necessarily translated in to accurate, and neither does subjective necessarily translate into inaccurate, but to summaraize another's material is to remove the readers one step from the actual material and is second hand information to the material being summarized . . .

Going to the source is what is needed. Presenting source material . . . that could be primary (best) secondary, etc . . .

But qoutes of the source rather than summaries is what is needed in my opinion.

I mostly do the same as you. I've found where after I have clicked onto the link I'm at a website where I could click onto dozens upon dozens of pages and still not arrive at the information that the poster wants me to read. Either way, I do want and require the poster to explain to me what I am about to read.

Agreed.

I totally agree with this statement of yours, perhaps that's just our opinion though?

I still have a question as to what is acceptible objective evidence. Isn't the term "objective" in the eye of the beholder?

I think this depends on how we are using it . . . if it is a summary of our own, that is not presenting source material (ie the actual evidence) and so is more subjective than if we simply post the source material which would be more objective than a subjective rendering of it . . .

I believe the issue is that we are not merely posting our own personal opinoins, but backing those up with evidence from outside ourselves . .. That evidence is open to scrutiny and debate itself, but at least we are not only dealing with the presonal opinions of members.


Peace to all

 

[nephilimiyr]

I think there are somethings that are truly objective . . . I think there are somethings that can be presented as objective but may not be . . .

I think the point is that evidence is presented so one is not merely stating their personal opinoin inflamming others, for then you can get into a flame war . . . If evidence is presented, at least then that evidence can be examined etc and there is a place to start some form of reasonable discussion . . . .


Peace to all

Sounds very reasonable...I agree

 

[stone]

MEGIDDO PRISON, Israel -- Israeli archaeologists working in a maximum-security prison just down the road from Armageddon have unearthed what they think is the oldest church to be discovered in the land where Jesus was born.
"This is one of the most important finds of early Christianity," archaeologist Yardena Alexandre of the Israel Antiquities told journalists on a tour of the excavation yesterday.
Remains of the church, which archaeologists date to the mid-third or early fourth century, were found during a dig for artifacts before the planned construction of a new prison wing.
The ruins of the church include a mosaic tile floor with inscriptions in ancient Greek containing a reference to "The God Jesus Christ" and could shed light on early Christian practices.
The floor lies under a tarpaulin in the shadow of watchtowers, surrounded by high fences and barbed wire.
The prison is close to the plains of Armageddon, where the Book of Revelations says God will prevail over Satan in a fiery end-of-the-world battle.
"This is, in Israel for sure, the earliest church," said archaeologist Yotam Tepper, who heads the excavation.
He said archaeologists had previously discovered domestic prayer sites in the Holy Land that may be older than the ruins at the prison, but none that was classified as a church.
As he spoke, two inmates cleaned the mosaic designs with sponges.
The church was built in the style of a hall, and its mosaic floor contains geometric designs and an image of fish, an early Christian symbol.
One inscription on the floor indicates that a Roman soldier helped pay for the mosaics, and another dedicates a table to the memory of Jesus, archaeologists said.
Christians faced varying levels of persecution under the Roman Empire, interspersed with periods of calm. It was during such a lull that archaeologists think the Megiddo church was built to serve a local Christian community.

"What is important about this find is, it is in a transitional period. It is the very beginning of churches. There was no standard plan of a church," Mr. Alexandre said.
In 1998, American archaeologists excavating in southern Jordan said they had unearthed what they thought to be the world's oldest remaining church, dating to the late-third or early fourth century.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called the church a "very exciting" find. "This is truly an amazing story," he said in Jerusalem.
Asked what Israel would do with the site, Mr. Sharon replied that "this matter is now being checked."
Archaeologists said they preferred to keep the church intact and in place, but that the mosaics might be moved if necessary.

****

It would appear that your both wrong.

This church was paid for by a *clears throat* WOMAN , and the story, of this, that is carved into this church, goes on to tell that the woman asked for the help to get this started of a Roman soldier. She says that she wanted to contruct this for the god named Jesus. This is not in this article above, but it was in the cnn article that has been removed. I'm sure if i googled around i could find more of the story.

So it appears that the rcc is just an attempt to organize the christian religion that went astray. I believe what is important here is that you see this was contructed for a christian community, the church here also does not use crosses? This was just a place for the community to get together and worship father and his son. These people here were also, god forbid, jews. lol

Do you know why it doesn't use crosses? This entire cross thing is man made. Someone wearing a cross then would have been the equivalent of someone wearing an electric chair around their necks. The cross is only a Roman Execution device. Fishes are in the mosaic, no crosses anywhere, no virgin mary statues, and o yea, no pope. definately no crucifixes .

Your all wrong, so how bout that replacement theology question?

 

[nephilimiyr]

I believe the issue is that we are not merely posting our own personal opinoins, but backing those up with evidence from outside ourselves . .. That evidence is open to scrutiny and debate itself, but at least we are not only dealing with the presonal opinions of members.

Yes and I totally agree. Objectional evidence therefore can and should be presented but that's not saying that that evidence can't be debated. It can and does form a solid ground on which to debate.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Yes and I totally agree. Objectional evidence therefore can and should be presented but that's not saying that that evidence can't be debated. It can and does form a solid ground on which to debate.

Objectional or Objective? LOL

Evidence at times is going to be objectionable to some, of course . . but it should not be objecitonable for the same reasons as Jack Chick "literature" is objecitonable . . . Obvously, such "source" material isn't worth the paper or bits it is written on . . . As well as being objectionable in the extreme, it is totally unreiliable as evidence at all . . .

So obviously care should be taken with sources . .



Peace to all