Orthodox Christianity Apologetics Q&A

Author: Mopac

Posts

Total: 219
Topic's author
#61
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
So, a lot of people are damned to hell then?
That isn't really what we teach.




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.  

Well, what brought me to Orthodoxy was studying church history, and really, Orthodoxy most closely lines up with what the early church writes.

It is the original church. Really The Church.

It isn't popular in America at this time. Other places it is more popular.


#62
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
1. Does not Luke 9:49-50 suggest that parties independent of the line of apostolic succession which are favorable to the gospel of Christ might still be a part of His church?
2. If there was a pagan village in the middle of nowhere, and then a Bible translation in their language happened to wash up on the beach, and through it the whole village became Christian, but they were unaware of the existence of the Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic Church, and as a consequence never joined such, would they be eternally d*mned? If not, then it would appear that a church can exist outside of the line of apostolic succession, or am I wrong?
3. If apostolic succession is not necessary for salvation (even if desirable), then the only thing that really matters is correct doctrine and faithful practice, no?
Topic's author
#63
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
1. Does not Luke 9:49-50 suggest that parties independent of the line of apostolic succession which are favorable to the gospel of Christ might still be a part of His church?


Being for us is not the same as being with us. ;)


2. If there was a pagan village in the middle of nowhere, and then a Bible translation in their language happened to wash up on the beach, and through it the whole village became Christian, but they were unaware of the existence of the Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic Church, and as a consequence never joined such, would they be eternally d*mned? If not, then it would appear that a church can exist outside of the line of apostolic succession, or am I wrong?

We Orthodox don't teach that anyone who is not a part of The Church is damned. We teach that God knows the hearts of all men. We also teach that God doesn't damn anyone, people choose to reject him. The universality of this is made more clear when you accept that The Truth is God. It is also made more clear when you have the eyes to see that some people truly have embraced arbitrariness, and genuinely have no love for The Truth. Yet, even in such cases where this seems apparent, we know that God is the righteous judge, not us. So we do not make judgment calls on who is or isn't "damned".

As The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, we don't really acknowledge any other church as being legitimate. That said, we really try to be charitable about it. We tend to place a great deal more emphasis on free will. As such, we are very averse to coercion. In the cases of churches which have not been identified as heretical, but claim to be Christian, we refer to them as heterodox. They are not Orthodox.


3. If apostolic succession is not necessary for salvation (even if desirable), then the only thing that really matters is correct doctrine and faithful practice, no?

I wouldn't put a limit on God's mercy. I know that God offers salvation to everyone, and that those who out of their own free will reject the truth and seperate themselves from God will be tormented for it, and they don't even have to wait until the next life to see that strong delusion naturally comes from a rejection of the truth. 

It is universally better to go with God. And The Orthodox Church is God's church. These heterodox "churches" do not have the full religion, and I can say this as someone who might have been considered a protestant for a longer period of time than an Orthodox. 
Topic's author
#64
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Outplayz
@Swagnarok
Pardon, ya'll. I responded to your questions but did not mark yous as receivers.
#65
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
You don't judge them you just judge them and how does Caspar feel about you setting limits to his mercy, not arrogant much. hahahahahaha
Your hubris is unassailable and infinitely unwarranted.

they don't even have to wait until the next life to see that strong delusion naturally comes from a rejection of the truth. 
And the perfect example of that is you. BTW "the next life" is a caveman fantasy that the feeble minded in the 21st century are pacified by.
#66
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Mopac
That isn't really what we teach.
I'm curious then, what does it teach about believing? Can you be someone like me that is agnostic towards if Jesus was real or not? 

It isn't popular in America at this time. Other places it is more popular.
That actually makes sense if these other places are not like the west countries. In places where there isn't a strong lean towards science and technology, i can see the 'original' being more popular. But somewhere like America, it would make sense the Jordan Petterson way of looking at Christianity is the most popular. Although his way isn't the most popular currently, i predict a very metphory way of looking at it will be the one that gains in popularity as time goes on. 

Topic's author
#67
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Outplayz

I'm curious then, what does it teach about believing? Can you be someone like me that is agnostic towards if Jesus was real or not? 
Well, if you don't believe, we wouldn't baptize you. You can always talk to a priest. Maybe even go out for lunch or coffee. Talk about these things.


That actually makes sense if these other places are not like the west countries. In places where there isn't a strong lean towards science and technology, i can see the 'original' being more popular. But somewhere like America, it would make sense if the Jordan Petterson way of looking at Christianity isn't the most popular. All though, his way isn't the most popular currently, i predict a very metphory way of looking at it will be the one that gains in popularity as time goes on. 

It has very little to do with science and technology. Christianity is not anti-science. It is not that popular in America because all the churches in America are descended from Roman Catholicism and the churches that splintered of from them.

Roman Catholicism broke away from Orthodoxy over a thousand years ago, and have done a fine job giving Christianity a bad name in the west.

But in Orthodoxy, there is always an allegory or parable that gives a deeper meaning to everything. 

The great mystery behind the whole thing? Our religion is Truth worship. That is the hardest thing to get if you are distracted by appearances and think it is really about rituals and such. Everything is done the way it is done for a reason. It is all a lot deeper than it looks on the surface.

#68
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
Protestantism is not defined by schisms. I have already addressed this above. Protestants protested against the authority of Rome and for the authority of the Bible. There is basically one Reformed church - albeit containing numerous denomination - from the episcopal, Lutheran, and Presbyterians groups.  Baptists are not traditionally protestant - but rather dissenters. 

It was the Orthodox church which was left the fold, not the West.  

Apostolic succession in the sense of "laying on of hands from the beginning" is a myth and a superstition. The only real sense of apostolic succession is in relation to the teaching of the Apostle's creed. Otherwise, Jesus' death on the cross gets lost in the hands of the traditionalists. 

This is the same as good works. If people can be saved by good works, then Jesus death and resurrection is meaningless. If apostolic succession is simply the laying on of hands, then why bother with Jesus dying? Why did he not just lay hands on his apostles - and then get them to do the same? Why would he need to go to the cross? 

If you ask me, it is the so called orthodox church which is incomplete. Incomplete in relation to the Trinity. Incomplete in relation to salvation. Incomplete in relation to Jesus. Incomplete in relation to church history. 
#69
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Outplayz
I'm curious then, what does it teach about believing? Can you be someone like me that is agnostic towards if Jesus was real or not? 

Sorry about the long posts but...Don't let Mopac pull the wool over your eyes, if you are interested in Jesus read the Gospels. And when you do you will see why he is full of baloney.
The "original" crew had absolutely nothing to do with religious institutions and business, there was never some "appointed" religious group other than those who have "ears to hear" and who applies the teachings as they are taught by Jesus. The group was the people, the followers...and these people are what make up the body, the church. These are the followers of his teachings period the end, there is no special group beyond that fact alone. On top of this Jesus precisely tore down the religious systems and the false idea that religious authority has power or control over any of us whom only gained that supposed authority from a corrupt system. Jesus came to break down and level that system.
The very first thing these Catholics did was attempt to resurrect exactly what Jesus shut down and if you've ever been to a Catholic or Orthodox "church" you will see first hand it's nothing like what Jesus represented in the Gospels. These Catholics slap the title of "orthodoxy" on their religious system pretending they are some original lineage of the teachings of Jesus, that is nonsense. The original teachings of Jesus are in the Gospels, we don't need any ridiculous groups telling us the contents of those teachings just like Jesus never needed the authority of the Jewish religious system.
Note: Peter was not Catholic, Jesus was not Catholic...there was never any title or claims of institutions, that has no part in the Gospels. These are just titles and names made up to grant these hypocrites authority over the average commoner. The title "orthodoxy" sounds appealing and special, unfortunately for them, all it really means is they believe they are some specially selected "church" and everyone else who doesn't join their club is some heretic. Remind you of the Pharisees and Sadducees? yes it does it is a spitting image.

So while people like me that have been applying the Gospels since I was a young boy and seeking God with a whole heart and in sincerity these orthodox and Catholic snobs are hanging out in their special clubs dressed in costly array and gowns, expensive buildings and golden thrones splashing holy water on one another while burning incense and think somehow that has anything to do with the teachings of Jesus. This is why Jesus lost his cool and showed them to be the fools they were and are taking it upon himself to go out into the world and show people another level of higher experience.
You see, the main difference between religious groups and the Gospels is purpose. Jesus' purpose and mission was to impact the world and the individual by stripping the power away from religious authorities and back into the hands of the true in heart, those who have the love of God not pride and vanity and that has nothing to do with religion as a system period. This is a lifestyle not a set of beliefs and ordinances.


#70
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Outplayz
Continued...
Jesus is a principle oriented teacher, he uses parables, illustrations and figurative language to relay spiritual principles and truth. These Catholics and so-called orthodox heretics come along and shamefully corrupted them by attempting to solidify the teachings by falsely adding a literal interpretation. This all started with the confession of Peter in Matthew 16....in this passage Jesus was never appointing a religious system or business. Peter was asked "who do you say I am" and Peter replied "you are the Christ, son of the living God" and Jesus then tells Peter "upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail over it". This is all fine and dandy, as Jesus always spoke in truth through principles.
However, the "rock" was the confession Peter made, it wasn't literally Peter himself, the rock (confession) was the foundation of Christian belief. And upon that confession (rock) is what will build the body of believers.
The church is simply the followers of Jesus, which includes all who participate not just self-appointed special interest groups like those who try and label themselves the original followers, that is immature and TBH quite stupid.
So what did these orthodox and Catholics do? they began to believe that Peter as a normal man was to become some sort of infallible line of Papacy lol, no, no, no...!! Jesus made it clear Peter was an idiot later on and so the whole idea became corrupted right off the bat. Peter was simply a guy like you and I who happened to connect to what Jesus was teaching. The statement that Jesus made in that passage really had nothing to do with Peter at all other than he was the one who confessed it. Jesus could have simply just said it, but rather he wanted Peter to acknowledge on his own accord, likewise the same with all who read the Gospels.
The term "church" refers to the body of believers. This is where most people get the wrong idea, the church represents the body, which is made of believers, it has nothing to do with any group that believe they are special. This is an individual ordeal, which then bleeds over collectively. The Gospels have always been for the individual and anyone who wishes to apply the teachings period, end of story. Those that like to claim favoritism because they belong to some organization have no idea what the true message of the Gospels are. They are fooling themselves and limiting the impact they could have on the world in the way Jesus actually exemplified. This is so obvious if anyone were to approach the Gospels on their own without any religious authority hanging over their heads.
So while Jesus went out and did all the hard work, the religious phonies stayed in their little buildings and clubs casting scorn on those outside it rather than embracing them with love and compassion and bringing the light of God amongst them in a real way. Jesus did exactly that, opposed those corrupt hypocrites and went out into the world whom they rejected and they plotted to murder him for it. Nothing has really changed with the system, with those who claim authority over others especially in Catholic and orthodox squares.
They still stay in their little special clubs persecuting everyone else claiming they are some "original" flowers of Christ and it is nothing short of a comedy. 
A guy like Mopac that decided to join a religious club later on in life while a guy like me, who has been applying the teachings of Jesus on my own accord since I was a young boy gets labels a heretic and outcast because I didn't join his special club is hilarious. But see what I mean? the point behind the Gospels is bringing any individual to the realization of God with love, power and unity while the purpose behind religious groups is to get you to join their special club and if you dare not to, you are rejecting God, you're a heretic and deemed worthless. This is exactly the mentality Jesus came to abolish, which was what the religious community had been putting forth. Jesus brought the power back to where it truly belongs and one reason I admire him so much. He transformed religious pretentious beliefs into an objective experience for all who wish to come and abide. Jesus never put emphasis on giving power or favor towards religious authority rather towards the laymen with sincere heart and eyes willing to see something beyond the physical perception.



#71
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@EtrnlVw
I was going to bring that up... the whole Jesus was against this kind of church, but okay... you beat me to it. I was setting it up to get there. And no, he isn't pulling a wool over my eyes bc i don't believe any this. But if i did, i would believe your version over any of them bc it makes most sense. And that's what i meant that Orthodoxy is going to continue to decline. That's one reason. 

But in principle... the original of a religion would hypothetically be the best since it is not corrupted. But... i do not believe Christianity has any secs that are not corrupted. Which is why overall it will decrease over the years once people wake up to that and gain more spiritual intelligence. Spiritual intelligence is really at retard levels in our world presently, but i think it will rise and finally put to rest organized religion. 

But yeah... i like your version best so i wonder what Mopac has to say about it... It is the version that will beat all other versions if i'm predicting here. The whole believe in Jesus and his ways and drop the organized religion part. But with a big caveat, it has to be done right. Bc one big thing is community. People go to church or join a club for community which clubs like Catholics kinda have down. But i think it can be done with your version too. I think you have the Jordan Petterson version of Christianity... however, i'm not sure if he thinks Jesus was real bc it sounds like you do. I'm agnostic about it, but if he did, he was nothing more than a spiritual teacher.  
#72
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
The wording was changed - an addition was made - and it was an ecumenical council. It was just that some - did not attend. They themselves chose not to attend - for other reasons. And even after that - there was another council where agreement was reached even in accord with the new wording - the problem was at that stage the East decided to renege. 

The pope was starting to rise in the church -but his authority was still very much at a lesser level than you are opining about.  

It simply is incorrect to state that the East somehow did not have an opportunity to join the discussions. I have no doubt that there may be some people within the Orthodox church who are saved by grace through faith. Nevertheless, there are many, like there are in the RCC, who rely only upon their denominational tag as a means of salvation. the problem is - denominations are not the means to salvation - Jesus is. It is not tradition, it is not even the church, it is not good works, it is grace through faith in Jesus Christ by which any can be saved. Baptism will not save you - not will taking communion. 

Sin is the problem and Jesus alone has dealt with sin by his death and resurrection.  We trust in him for our life and our life will reflect what he has done for us in the way we live.  
#73
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Outplayz
But in principle... the original of a religion would hypothetically be the best since it is not corrupted.

I described exactly what it is that is original and who it is that meets that definition, there is no religious group that was original other than Jesus in the Gospels and those teachings, the apostles were his followers. That is the original source. The title "orthodoxy" was attributed to a self-appointed group it means nothing. True orthodox means to get back to the Gospels and apply them individually, not religious groups and if you read them you will see that quite clearly. 

But yeah... i like your version best so i wonder what Mopac has to say about it...

Lol, when he has no argument, and he will have none in relation to my post, he will just say we're being haughty and prideful, meanwhile sitting on that pedestal himself. 



Look like anything related to Jesus of the Gospels??
#74
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
I should make the distinction between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy in regards to the Papacy but they still believe in Apostolic succession, which is pure baloney. There is no spiritual lineage of anyone apostolic. It's the true applicants of the Gospels that are the equivalent of a "succession". 
#75
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@EtrnlVw
I described exactly what it is that is original and who it is that meets that definition, there is no religious group that was original other than Jesus in the Gospels and those teachings, the apostles were his followers. That is the original source. The title "orthodoxy" was attributed to a self-appointed group it means nothing. True orthodox means to get back to the Gospels and apply them individually, not religious groups and if you read them you will see that quite clearly. 
That was put very well. Jesus' teachings are the original and the only that should matter. That's why i was pushing him on the Jesus part. I think the only thing that should make you a Christian is following Jesus. It looks too, that is the most popular Christian view too which i'm okay with. Of course, it's still not fully how you say it bc humans need the community thing and always end up with a club. I wish it was more just metaphorical and just be good as he was and you'll be fine type mentality. 

Look like anything related to Jesus of the Gospels??
That's funny. I'll be honest, i didn't think Orthodoxy meant Catholic... I'm sorry, but that is on its dying leg... I'd gladly go to hell if that's the truth. 
#76
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Outplayz
I don't think joking about going to Hell is helpful. 
#77
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Tradesecret
It's really not a joke. Everything about the Christian afterlife i find to be hell. I think heaven would be hell, i think hell would be hell, and i think purgatory would be hell if you bring that into it. And none of that is a joke. It's one of the primary reasons i don't believe in Christianity. 
Topic's author
#78
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
Protestantism is not defined by schisms. I have already addressed this above. Protestants protested against the authority of Rome and for the authority of the Bible. There is basically one Reformed church - albeit containing numerous denomination - from the episcopal, Lutheran, and Presbyterians groups.  Baptists are not traditionally protestant - but rather dissenters.

One reformed church? Authority of the bible? That is a pretty bold claim. Presbytarians? They are Calvanists! How obnoxious that must be to a Methodist. And I know it is, because I am good friends with a Methodist pastor. We Orthodox do have that in common. On that note, I know this one Methodist church where they refer to God as "mother" during service and the clergy are all openly homosexual. Wild, eh? Lutherans? Are you talking about the Martin Luther who added words to his translation of the bible to justify his salvation by grace alone theology? Are you talking about the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America(the largest by the way) that conducts marriages between same sex couples within its walls? 

I know a man who was a Lutheran pastor for over 20 years. He is an Orthodox now. It happened, like many of the other former pastors at my parish, after they got some education. It happened to me too! One of our deacons was an Episcopalian pastor for just as long.

But no, there is no one reformed church. That is a claim that I don't believe can be backed up. And even now, there are new denominations popping up. A relatively new denomination has sprang up in the last couple of decades in my city.. They have churches all over town. I presume this is because they can't get along with the established churches. 



It was the Orthodox church which was left the fold, not the West. 

Yet, the council of Ephesus in 431 (3rd ecumenical council) clearly ruled that anyone who alters the creed will be anathemized, and on that...

This is the same as good works. If people can be saved by good works, then Jesus death and resurrection is meaningless.
Pelagianism was also recognized as a heresy at this same ecumenical council


Apostolic succession in the sense of "laying on of hands from the beginning" is a myth and a superstition. The only real sense of apostolic succession is in relation to the teaching of the Apostle's creed. Otherwise, Jesus' death on the cross gets lost in the hands of the traditionalists.
I don't know what you think I'm saying, but laying on of hands is something you see an awful lot in scripture, even in the context of appointing someone to an office. It happens in Acts when the Apostles appoints deacons. It happens when Barnabus and Paul were sent to be missionaries from Antioch. These are all just examples from the book of acts. If tradition was bad in itself, why does Paul write in his second letter to the Thessalonians to hold to the traditions?

The Orthodox Church has kept to Holy Tradition as other "churches" compromise to the prevailing culture.


If apostolic succession is simply the laying on of hands, then why bother with Jesus dying? Why did he not just lay hands on his apostles - and then get them to do the same? Why would he need to go to the cross?
Because simply touching someone with your hands doesn't do anything on its own, and no one is claiming this.


If you ask me, it is the so called orthodox church which is incomplete. Incomplete in relation to the Trinity. Incomplete in relation to salvation. Incomplete in relation to Jesus. Incomplete in relation to church history.


This is a pretty bold claim considering we actually remember what went on during the so called "dark ages", keep the writings of the church fathers, remember the saints, hold to the ancient monastic tradition, and take our religious education very seriously.

You really have nothing to back this up, it is the type of opinion that can only come from someone who is wholly unfamiliar with Orthodoxy. Well, that is why I am here. To educate.


Topic's author
#79
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
The wording was changed - an addition was made - and it was an ecumenical council. It was just that some - did not attend. They themselves chose not to attend - for other reasons. And even after that - there was another council where agreement was reached even in accord with the new wording - the problem was at that stage the East decided to renege. 

If they did not attend, it wasn't an ecumenical council. Rome has this idea that whatever the Pope signs is an ecumenical council. There is a reason why they aren't Orthodox!

The council that the "east decided to renege" on, I am assuming you are talking about the Councils that were held during the invasion of the Ottomans. The one where the entire church allegedly agreed to submit to the Pope as supreme pontiff and effectively become Roman Catholic? Who attended this council? 

Obviously, The Orthodox Church could not see this council as legitimate. And you know what, how could we? The Crusaders, on their way to fighting the Muslims robbed our churches and killed our people. They deposed our bishops and tried to replace them with Latin ones. 

They are not Orthodox for a reason!



The pope was starting to rise in the church -but his authority was still very much at a lesser level than you are opining about.  

There is a historical pattern going back to the earliest days of the church where the Bishop of Rome would try to rule on things outside of his jurisdiction, and being rebuked by the rest of the church. In fact, if you could pinpoint the cause of the schism on any one thing, it is the idea that the Bishop of Rome was bishop over the entire church. 

Now what makes more sense.. That 1 Patriarch broke away from 5 or that the 4 left the 5? 

The New Testament, I might add, is written in Greek, not Latin. 

These are just common sense observations.

It simply is incorrect to state that the East somehow did not have an opportunity to join the discussions. I have no doubt that there may be some people within the Orthodox church who are saved by grace through faith. Nevertheless, there are many, like there are in the RCC, who rely only upon their denominational tag as a means of salvation. the problem is - denominations are not the means to salvation - Jesus is. It is not tradition, it is not even the church, it is not good works, it is grace through faith in Jesus Christ by which any can be saved. Baptism will not save you - not will taking communion. 

Orthodoxy does not teach that being part of the church, partaking of the eucharist, or baptism will save you.

So you clearly don't know what we believe.

We do not believe in "greasy grace" which is the idea that you can just root for team Jesus and be saved. If you have faith, you will have works. Faith without works is dead.


Sin is the problem and Jesus alone has dealt with sin by his death and resurrection.  We trust in him for our life and our life will reflect what he has done for us in the way we live.  

And so if you reflect this in the way you live, there are works with your faith.



Now, you being a protestant should understand that there is something seriously wrong with The Roman Church. You are right, there is something wrong! That is why by the time the protestants revolted against them, they hadn't been Orthodox for centuries!

And it is my hope that you and others come back home to Orthodoxy. 
#80
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
The Roman church excommunicated the Orthodox church. Read history and not propaganda.
Topic's author
#81
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@EtrnlVw
@Outplayz
New Age Jesus from etrnlvw, who isn't a Christian...

Some of the heretical beliefs he has professed...

1. God doesn't know the future, only what is currently happening.
2. Jesus was a created being.
3. It doesn't matter what is written in the New Testament, because those that followed Jesus didn't get it.


Outplayz invented his own religion, thinks he is god, and seems to believe whatever he thinks up that sounds aesthetically pleasing.


Neither of you are Christians.


And etrnlvw, Jesus didn't hate priests and religious establishments. You can't tell me that the one who read scriptures in the synagogue, picked out the 12 Apostles, sent out the 70, etc. Hated religion!


What he hated were religious hypocrites like yourself who put on a show of spirituality on the outside while inwardly being ravenous wolves. Look at you, who are quick to side with devil worshippers in order to attack the true church, which is certainly a threat to your spiritual egotism!

You should certainly repent, because your words are not the words of an enlightened man who has obtained disspassion and humility, but the words of someone who embraces lawlessness. And like most anarchists, this is really a means to elevate yourself.

But above all, you don't really understand Orthodoxy or what we teach. We are not Roman Catholics. Our priests do not lord themselves over anyone. They do not burden and guilt people because of their sins. They are there to teach people at all steps in their walk. They do a lot of work. And as you show, it is thankless work. They are very busy, not only in conducting liturgies, which are long and ordered, but in constantly hearing other people's problems and having to suffer through people's confessions. They have to be a shoulder to cry on. They have to tell the truth. They have to be examples themselves. It is very hard work, and can be taxing on their families. Because yes, many priests are married.

During liturgy, there are certain vestments that the priests wear at certain times. The purpose of these vestments is not to call attention to the priest, but to call attention away from the priest and to minimize them personally. They are performing a function. And like a doctor who wears a white coat or a policemen who wears a badge, they have a uniform. When they are not performing their obligations at the altar, which not everyone can or should do, they are dressed in a very simple manner. Some do have pectoral crosses, which are given to them by the bishop to acknowledge faithful service. And being a priest is A SERVICE. I have nothing but respect for all good priests. I am thankful for the archpriest at my parish, he is a very humble man who is wise and full of love. I consider him not only a priest, but a friend.




Now seeings as neither of you really understand Orthodoxy, and cannot really distinguish it from Latin Papalism, this is the pllace to ask questions. I will do my best to answer them. I wish the best for both of you, and sincerely hope for your salvation. I am not either of your enemies. So I would appreciate it if you did not hold it against me for believing what I do. Over 66.5 million Orthodox Christians have been killed last century by those who hate us for our beliefs. But we hate no one, and we do not persecute anyone. We are peaceful law abiding Christians who are called to love all. Loving people doesn't mean lying to people so they can feel included in something they have no part in. We take corruption of the church seriously, and will not compromise our faith in order that idolators feel secure.

#82
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Mopac
Outplayz invented his own religion, thinks he is god, and seems to believe whatever he thinks up that sounds aesthetically pleasing.
I'm going to put this one first bc i think you are talking out of your ass. Please describe to me this religion i've created?? I'm pretty sure i haven't created any and furthermore that i believe in no religion. So please tell me what this religion is that you're talking about me creating? 

1. God doesn't know the future, only what is currently happening.
I'm pretty sure that isn't what he believes. I don't know though. In the platform he talks about god is the past, present and future. Does god know it like an individual does, no. It's just everything simultaneously. God wouldn't be an individual in such a platform. It would be a source. 

2. Jesus was a created being.
In such a platform, everything creates itself, therefore, this would be accurate. 

3. It doesn't matter what is written in the New Testament, because those that followed Jesus didn't get it.
He's right in only focusing on Jesus bc he is really all that matters in his type of belief. He believes Jesus was a spiritual master therefore his words and stories are key. This isn't a bad way of looking at it in my opinion, but personally i don't share in any of this. I think the entire Bible is man-made and irrelevant. Well, i shouldn't say that... it's not necessary. 

Neither of you are Christians.
I've previously given you a chance to convince me why i should be. You cannot answer my questions and you cannot define your own belief. I've talked to many Christians throughout my years, your not the first. There are many reasons i'm not Christian... including but not limited to it doesn't make sense and it is clearly man-made. If you can answer my concerns and prove me otherwise, i'll become a Christian the moment you do. So far all you've done is run from my questions or dodge them. As per all the Christians i've talked to, you've so far done the worst in explaining why i should find Christianity to be true.

Orthodoxy
There is a reason Orthodoxy and religion are on their dying leg. It's not a dislike for the people, it's no a dislike of god... it's simply wrong and anyone that puts some thought into can see it is clearly man-made. Catholics above all others being the most obvious in showing people this. 
Topic's author
#83
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Outplayz
If you have questions about Orthodoxy, I will be happy to answer them to the best of my ability.




#84
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Mopac
What does the Orthodox version say about the afterlife? 

How is it that everything humans touch get corrupted and is fallible... but this one book through thousands of years isn't? A little history of the "humans" i'm talking about. Creatures that got and get enjoyment in torturing other human; Creatures that use to rape and kill women and children just bc they were the wives and children of their enemies; Creatures that use to and still find enjoyment in killing other human beings bc they are different; Creatures that use to watch people get torn to pieces in arenas for fun... you are telling me these creatures maintained and have created this religion for the benefit of the world? 
Topic's author
#85
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Outplayz
This world is not going to change.

As Jesus even said, "My Kingdom is not of this world."

The church teaches that God alone is infallible.


God doesn't condemn anyone. People condemn themselves by rejecting God. And in that, there is a resurrection of the dead. Both just and just. Rest and paradise for the unjust, and torment for the unjust.


"those who find themselves in hell will be chastised by the scourge of love. How cruel and bitter this torment of love will be! For those who understand that they have sinned against love, undergo no greater suffering than those produced by the most fearful tortures. The sorrow which takes hold of the heart, which has sinned against love, is more piercing than any other pain. It is not right to say that the sinners in hell are deprived of the love of God . . . But love acts in two ways, as suffering of the reproved, and as joy in the blessed!"
~Saint Isaac of Syria, Mystic Treatises



#86
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Mopac
Great and all but what about my questions. You can answer them one at a time if you want starting with what Orthodoxy says about what the afterlife is. 

#87
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
As Jesus even said, "My Kingdom is not of this world."
No he didn't.

Topic's author
#88
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Outplayz
God doesn't condemn anyone. People condemn themselves by rejecting God. And in that, there is a resurrection of the dead. Both just and just. Rest and paradise for the unjust, and torment for the unjust.


"those who find themselves in hell will be chastised by the scourge of love. How cruel and bitter this torment of love will be! For those who understand that they have sinned against love, undergo no greater suffering than those produced by the most fearful tortures. The sorrow which takes hold of the heart, which has sinned against love, is more piercing than any other pain. It is not right to say that the sinners in hell are deprived of the love of God . . . But love acts in two ways, as suffering of the reproved, and as joy in the blessed!"
~Saint Isaac of Syria, Mystic Treatises




#89
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Mopac
What is paradise? 
Topic's author
#90
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Outplayz
Theosis