Orthodox Christianity Apologetics Q&A

Author: Mopac

Posts

Total: 219
Topic's author
#31
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@EtrnlVw
You are ashamed to call yourself a Christian, have questioned the omniscience of God, called Jesus Christ a created being, and how many other things have you said?

Technically, you are the one who has adopted heretical position, and because you have a lot of pride, which is why you find authority to be obnoxious to begin with, you aren't likely to repent, but double down and pretend to be enlightened while hating the church.


It really hurts me to see you have such a negative attitude of the true church while knowing so little about it.
Topic's author
#32
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@disgusted
History rules in favor of Orthodoxy overwhelmingly. 
#33
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Who was excommunicated?
#34
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@disgusted
history suggests that the romans broke off from the orthodox christians for not accepting the pope. it was a roman based system strictly enforced. when the orthdoxians did not want to listen to the pope, they said fuck it, we don't want to be with you.

also propoganda is true dawg. chicago had reports of 400+ cases of sexual assault within the priesthood. sorry m8
#35
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mopac
knowing so little about it.

Try again. There is nothing about the Gospels OR epistles I know little about. 
#36
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Mopac
That... doesn't answer my question. That doesn't answer my question at all.
#37
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Vader
Who was excommunicated?
I don't know why you are fixated on having your private bits played with but it doesn't belong in this topic and I could not care less about it.
#38
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Mopac
I personally think that a great rediscovery of The Orthodox Church in America is inevitable as information is now more available about it than any other time, and as the other churches continue to compromise and bend to the whims of culture rather than to stay steadfast in truth.
Actually by stats, the number of religious are decreasing due to technology and will continue to decrease. There will be a boom in the "non" category, and also in non-duality. That last sentence is a prediction from me so take what you will of it... but, i'm willing to bet that is the future. 

In regards to your Orthodox church, i'm not going to pretend like i know exactly what it is. So, i'll ask... What makes it different than all the other Christian churches or ways of interpretation? Give me a good example and i'll let you know if it is going to do better in the future. I'm really good at predicting societal trends. I would guess if any of them have even a chance to grow, it will be churches that are more new aged. 
Topic's author
#39
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Because when I say The Truth, I mean exactly what that means.

If it helps, uncapitalize it in your head. It is a name of God, so I will capitalize it.
Topic's author
#40
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@disgusted
The excommunication was mutual.

Rome first.

Constantinople second.

The other 3 patriarchs sided with Constantinople.



Topic's author
#41
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@EtrnlVw
If you say so.

Next step I suppose for you would be to study church history.

Topic's author
#42
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Outplayz
What makes it different?

It is the same church founded by Jesus and the apostles with an unbroken continuity of existence.

So really, you never knew Christianity because what you learned of it was likely from those who are at least 2 steps broken off from it.




Topic's author
#43
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Vader
We are a lonely breed out here, eh?

Church of Antioch here, but I'd go to a Greek Church.

We all Orthodox here, eh?

#44
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
The ole you can't fire me, I fire you. Pathetic little pansies.
#45
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Mopac
I thought the only thing necessary to be Christian is to believe in Jesus.... well, not the only thing but the main one. So other than that how is it different?
#46
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Vader
the East and the West split, not so much over the pope, although many in the East did not think he should have assumed so much, yet the papal power had not reached close to its power when the split occurred.

the split occurred over the Trinity, not the pope. The issue at stake was whether the Spirit of God proceeded from both the Son and the Father or only from the Father. The East took the view that one view diminished the deity of the Spirit while the other view took the view that the alternative view was not in accord with the Scriptures. 

Hence, why the orthodox view thinks that the West has an idolatrous position in relation to the bible and why the West thinks the East has a defective view in relation to the Trinity. 
Topic's author
#47
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Outplayz
Well, anyone can say they believe in Jesus. That doesn't mean they know Jesus. The Arians, Muslims, and even the new agers will say they believe in Jesus. 


But none of these are the Jesus that we believe.


How it is different depends on what you are comparing it to. Could you give me something to compare it to? You have to understand that there are thousands of churches under the protestant/evangelical/nondenominational umbrella that can all be very different. What sets Orthodoxy apart from all of those churches, which at the oldest are maybe 500 years old, is our church is 2000 years old at least.


Topic's author
#48
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
It actually really does have a lot to do with the Pope exerting authority beyond his jurisdiction. There were several instances going back several hundred years of the rest of the church rebuking the Pope over this.


But the issue about the trinity and the creed was this... all of the churches agreed on the creed that we Orthodox use even to this day. The Romans altered the creed without an ecumenical council, a requirement to do such a thing. The change was done because of pressure from secular authorities in the west that the Pope had a hand in creating. The corruption of the creed originated in Spain in an attempt to combat Arianism. This corruption spread to a church that Charlemagne grew up in. He was the first to pressure the Pope into altering the creed. It didn't end up happening until later.

Scripture does say...


"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me."

And the entire church agreed that the spirit proceeds from the father. The corruption didn't happen until later.

The Orthodox Church doesn't see the west as having an idolatrous position in regards to the bible, it sees it as having an idolatrous position in regards to the Pope!

As far as the protestants though, more that they lost a great deal in their schism from Rome and that they have an incomplete form of Christianity.


#49
linate
linate's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 222
0
1
1
linate's avatar
linate
0
1
1
-->
@Mopac
what is your standard of unity? if the russian orthodox church excommunicated everyone else, who is to say where the true church is? and that goes for any of the districts. 
#50
linate
linate's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 222
0
1
1
linate's avatar
linate
0
1
1
are non-orthodox services that try to be orthodox as the early church was, valid? why not?


what makes those protestants not part of the true church? 

does it all boil down to apostolic succession? 

and if it does, that leads to my last post, which groups of the orthodox represent the true church when they start ex commnicating everyone from each other? 

Topic's author
#51
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@linate

what is your standard of unity? if the russian orthodox church excommunicated everyone else, who is to say where the true church is? and that goes for any of the districts. 

Conformity to Church Tradition is a good measure. The Roman Catholic Church as an example has deviated quite a bit from Church Tradition.

If The Russian Orthodox Church excommunicated all the other churches, well... 1 patriarch against 8. They would clearly be the schismatics.

But that isn't the case. My Church is in communion with Russia, and we get along fine. They have a lot of really nice saints, Russia.


are non-orthodox services that try to be orthodox as the early church was, valid? why not?


what makes those protestants not part of the true church? 


It is a misguided thing to do. The Orthodox Church has not changed since the schism. Rome has. Why aren't they simply becoming Orthodox? The effort seems nice, but it would save them a lot of trouble if they rejoined with The Orthodox Church, which is something I would like to see. The Orthodox Church in America is still pretty tiny.


does it all boil down to apostolic succession? 

and if it does, that leads to my last post, which groups of the orthodox represent the true church when they start ex commnicating everyone from each other? 

"When" is an awfully presumptuous thing to say.

The Orthodox Church doesn't really have a problem with schisms. Not really since Rome broke away from us. Since Rome broke away, they have had constant schisms. Protestantism is practically defined by its never ending schisms.

Orthodoxy is pretty stable, and even manages to remain intact after government meddling. When persecution and government meddling lets up, it returns to default. That is one of the good things about The Orthodox system. We aren't really seperate churches, we all share the same Church Tradition, and we are all One Body of Christ.


#52
linate
linate's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 222
0
1
1
linate's avatar
linate
0
1
1
-->
@Mopac

is there an equivalent of protestants to orthodoxy in eastern regions? i asked at an orthodox forum and they said maybe the Georgian Baptists. do you know of any others?

i joined an orthodox forum and was bouncing around ideas with them for years. here is an example thread that i started. i think i started some interesting threads. if you are curious you can click the username and search for posts and threads by user. 

do you post at orthodox websites?
#53
linate
linate's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 222
0
1
1
linate's avatar
linate
0
1
1
-->
@Mopac

what is your view of miracles within the catholic church? personally if i had to choose between the two catholic and orthodox, i'd go orthodox. but it seems like catholics have more miracles. maybe that's just because it's a bigger church, though. id say, as jesus said, mriacles are indicators of truth. what do you think about the fact that catholics have so many miracles, if they are simply filled with error and schismatics? 
i always appreciated the incorrupt bodies in both of the churches. 
#54
linate
linate's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 222
0
1
1
linate's avatar
linate
0
1
1
-->
@Mopac

so you say if the russians broke off they'd be outnumbered. so are you saying it's God's truth that the key point here is majority rule? i'm not saying it's wrong, it's just such a man made sounding concept. 

i dont know the history of orthodox schisms, but i'm sure like the georgian baptists and catholics there are other examples of schismatic churches, isn't there? so how is it different than protestantism and catholic church? 
#55
linate
linate's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 222
0
1
1
linate's avatar
linate
0
1
1
here are some orthodox schisms

so i'm not sure it's accurate to say there's no division in eastern regions like there are with catholic. from what i can see, weterns are a lot more free wheeling, but it's not like there's not division on both sides. 

#56
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Mopac
Well, anyone can say they believe in Jesus.
Okay, my bad. You're right. I wasn't being specific enough. You need to believe Jesus is lord and savior, died for our sins and surrendering to him and his ways. That's what makes you Christian right?


How it is different depends on what you are comparing it to. Could you give me something to compare it to? You have to understand that there are thousands of churches under the protestant/evangelical/nondenominational umbrella that can all be very different. What sets Orthodoxy apart from all of those churches, which at the oldest are maybe 500 years old, is our church is 2000 years old at least.
 So Orthodoxy is the oldest?

Topic's author
#57
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@linate
I am not familiar with Georgian Baptists.

This is the only forum I am on. 

My faith is in The Truth, not miracles.

I personally do not find it hard to believe that there are real saints in other churches. However, I still would say that studying church history is a big part of what lead me to Orthodoxy. I did not become an Orthodox first. I do believe that The Orthodox Church has the best claim to being the visible church here on Earth. The evidence points to it. Besides that, the theology is really good.

There are a few examples of government meddling with the church. It didn't last. A lot of that meddling was in fact done in Russia. There are a few minor break offs, but they are simply being stubborn about what can historically be proven as an error and anomaly.

There are the so called "non-chalcedonian" churches, and from what I gather we are on pretty good terms and reconciliation seems to be an inevitable thing. The bishops and priests seem to believe that we really believe the same thing.

There is no division over here though. These "independent orthodox denominations" are likely making false claims of orthodoxy. I can't really speak about them. I have heard in my city there are some new age type churches that pretend to be orthodox, but are not really.



Apostolic succession is a real thing. If a church forms independent of that, they are not really with us!







Topic's author
#58
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Outplayz
Okay, my bad. You're right. I wasn't being specific enough. You need to believe Jesus is lord and savior, died for our sins and surrendering to him and his ways. That's what makes you Christian right?

Well, even then, that doesn't really tell you much about Jesus. To some people, that might mean you are a Christian. To us Orthodox that means you could be accepted as a catechumen, go through classes, and be educated so that you actually know what all that means. Then, after you have been educated about what all that really means, you can be baptized if it is clear that you understand what you are saying you believe!

So for us Orthodox, it is a bit more complicated, and part of that has to do with the fact that we hold these things with reverence.



So Orthodoxy is the oldest?

Oh yeah, easily. It goes all the way back to the beginning.
#59
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Mopac
Well, even then, that doesn't really tell you much about Jesus. To some people, that might mean you are a Christian. To us Orthodox that means you could be accepted as a catechumen, go through classes, and be educated so that you actually know what all that means. Then, after you have been educated about what all that really means, you can be baptized if it is clear that you understand what you are saying you believe!
So, a lot of people are damned to hell then?

Oh yeah, easily. It goes all the way back to the beginning.
If it is the first, i personally would say it's the best by being the original.. but i don't think it is. I'm pretty sure a lot has changed up bc that is what humans do... ruin / corrupt things. But if the argument is besides what i think of it, i would say the original by default should be the best obviously. But i do think being marketed as the original will also make it least popular among Christians.  

#60
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Then, after you have been educated
You mean indoctrinated.

Oh yeah, easily. It goes all the way back to the beginning
200,000yrs? Now that is a bald faced lie.