You ain't a " Christian " then FULL STOP•••• You're a certain " type " of Christian..

Author: Deb-8-a-bull

Posts

Total: 35
Topic's author
#1
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,249
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
You're a Catholic , a Mormon or maybe one of them seventh dayers.
'Why' there has to be over 50 different types of these Christians right?  ' winks ' 
 
I do know why you would love to be just " A Christian "   but ummmmmm, Ya ain't.  And I don't like it.  And i wouldn't think your group likes it.  
Christian shmistren. 

However. I will except the Original group known as the " Christians " calling themselves just  A " Christian" . That's cool. 
( so if you " Christians " can work out between you lot  who is the first group of " Christians "  and what number of Christian you are.)

And i do know everyone LOVESSSS the fact that we have ( 2 billion " Christians " ) and what ( 1.7 or so Muslims )  so we will keep it for this. 
You couldn't and wouldn't get away with calling yourself just " A Christian " back in the days.  

Imagine telling a  group of people that  come around ya hut asking you what religion you are that you are " A Christian " 
The priests didn't hide in roofs because they were " a Christian " 

So For the rest of this week if anyone  states that they are a Christian and say nothing else.  they are Protestants. 
Next week it's the latter-day saints. ( are they Christian? )
Your not just " Christian " FULL STOP.

I don't know where this is going now.  I did want to get this of my chest but. 

So just ummmm,  Think of Someone stating that They are CHRISTIAN. 
What's happening ?


Oh and while I'm at it .  i don't like the word  ( Amen ) 
You know ? 
You're looking for a word that finish of alot of your chants , prayers and whatever eles ,
I THINK THEY* COULD OF WENT WITH A BETTER WORD THEN ( AMEN ) 
SHAZAMMMM comes to mind.
Or  or Boom , kapowwww .  Anything but ( AMEN ) 
Other then this. 

Good game.
Good game. 


Topic's author
#2
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,249
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Christians must HATE different Christians hey?
I would.

#3
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,701
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
nah
#4
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Oh and while I'm at it .  i don't like the word  ( Amen ) 
You know ? 
You're looking for a word that finish of alot of your chants , prayers and whatever eles ,

In the early days when group prayers were first beginning the guy leading the prayer would just stop talking when the prayer was finished but every time there was at least one in the group that just dozed off in the middle of the prayer so their buddy had to nudge them and say "  'ey man, prayer is done "

This was eventually formalized at the council of Nicaea into everyone just saying " 'ey men " at the end of each prayer to save time waking everyone up individually. Over time this morphed into the 'amen' we know today.
#5
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
What about it bothers you?
Topic's author
#6
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,249
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@janesix
The fa t that I feel like the fonz from happy days when i say it.  So i HAVE TO DO OT IN THAT " Accent
#7
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
It is really only confusing if you take self declaration as being proof of identity.

The truth  of the matter is, there is only one legitimate Christian Church. The original church. The Orthodox Catholic Church. If you aren't with the church, how can you call yourself a Christian? Heretics call themselves Christians. What does this do but confuse those who don't know any better?

It is even stated in the creed of the church, "I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church". 

The doctrine of the true church is enlightened. The heterodox rarely even know the God they worship. 

If we allow ourselves to call heretics and schismatics Christian, we can say there are 2 typess of Christianity...

Orthodox Christianity

And

Heterodox Christianity 



And with God's mercy, many who have been fooled by the heterodox will be united with the church post resurrection.









#8
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,457
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I agree with Mopac to an extent. There are orthodox Christians and everyone else. 

Orthodox however is not referring to the name of a denomination - one which Mopac belongs to. 

Orthodox is those Christians who hold to the early creeds of the church, primarily to the doctrine  of the Trinity and the atonement. 

They hold to the belief that Jesus is not only the second person of the Trinity, but is the Son of God who is God. And that he died and rose again from the dead and has now ascended. 

There are numerous other doctrines which are orthodox - but these are the primary ones which distinguish orthodox from the rest. 

Mormons - JWs, and many Charismatic churches do not hold to these primary doctrines - therefore they would not be considered orthodox.

Many people within orthodox denominations on the other hand do not themselves hold to these doctrines - but infact are in the church for all sorts of reasons, family, tradition, community, relationships, boredom with life in general, evil intentions, superstitions, habit, etc.  Attending a church does not make one an orthodox Christian. 



#9
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
@Tradesecret
The church would agree with you that attending even The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church does mean you are worshipping Godd in Spirit and in Truth.


For Christ Himself said,

"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:
Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.
So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."






#10
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7



.
Mopac,

YOUR COMICAL QUOTE AS FUNNY AS A TRADESECRET QUOTE: "there is only one legitimate Christian Church. The original church. The Orthodox Catholic Church."

A serious question, when the origin of the pagan Catholic Church was evolving, were there pedophile priests back in this era as well?  Did the church at this time try and move them around, and coverup for their horrific acts upon innocent young children as they screamed with being frightened because the priest was buggering them?

Or, is the child buggering trade only a new event in your ungodly church because it was explicitly shown that your church tried to coverup their child abuse since the mid 1960's with your evil Pope RATzinger.  

Have you ever been buggered by a priest in your churches "rectory?"

We will look forward to a serious reply, thanks.  


.
#11
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,457
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
@Deb-8-a-bull
hi guys and girls,

Christians don't hate other Christians. In fact the bible says that if someone calling themselves a Christian hates a Christian then he really is not a Christian. After all, Christians are people who have been enlivened by the Holy Spirit, hence it would be saying God hates God - and that is really an absurdity. 

Now it is true that there are many people who consider themselves Christians who are not. That is however quite a different issue. The problem when we start to talk like that is it gets misunderstood.  Christians as a general rule get on with each other and are able to worship and practise love towards each other.  However, sometimes they have arguments and this causes friction in the ranks. But does it mean they hate each other? I don't agree with my Baptist brethren in respect of their position on baptism, but I don't hate them nor do I have a problem worshiping with them.  Nor do I agree with the Roman Catholic position in respect of the papacy. Yet, I don't hate them nor do I find it difficult to worship with them, although I will tend to pick and choose the occasions I might want to worship with them and how that takes place. 

On the other hand, I take the view that the Mormons and the JWs are not Christian and I could not worship with them. But then again I don't hate them even though we do disagree with them.  Come to think of it, I don't actually hate anyone, perhaps the devil. I hate evil per se. But I don't hate Muslims, nor atheists. I don't hate murderers, and pedophiles even though I would never trust them.  But loving someone does not mean trusting them or even agreeing with them or condoning what they do.  In my view loving someone is "treating them in accordance with the 10 commandments" as best as I can do. It means treating them as human and with dignity (even though they don't show the same towards others or even towards me). It  means thinking the best of them - albeit cautiously, acknowledging that all people are genuinely self- interested for themselves. It means giving people mostly the benefit of the doubt - until shown otherwise - but even then not devaluing them of the fact that they are human - made in the image of God - and therefore rightfully owed some dignity. 

But showing love towards someone does not mean I have to worship with them, nor does it mean I have to condone what they do or say - and it does not mean I must accept them merely for the words they say. But if a Muslim or a Mormon or a JW walked into my church, I would sit down next to them and I would continue to praise God and worship God, even if they started singing or praying. Yet, I would not attend their churches or temples or mosques unless I was invited and I would not join in with them in their cultural worship - because that would be to be unfaithful to my God. Just like I might be invited to a party down the street - and invited to join in with the cultural norms of getting drunk and having sex in an orgy. I would not join in - because I would not unfaithful to my wife. It would never be done as an insult - but rather out of faithfulness to my God or my wife. 

Christians ought to love all people. How this love looks however is going to be different in every sort of circumstance. Would I let the Muslim or JW participate in our communion? Great question - it would be a matter for the local congregation. I actually think that either the Muslim nor the JW would want to take communion - out of respect for their own religion - but if they did then the local congregation would need to make that decision - hopefully based upon biblical basis. 

#12
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
The Orthodox Church only allows Orthodox Christians to take communion. Everyone can partake of the body, but the blood of the New Covenant is only for those who belong to the church. We also do not take communion at non Orthodox Churches.

Indeed, open communion is a very recent development in protestant churches, because if you go back a hundred or even maybe 50 years ago, nobody practiced open communion. It is a very recent development.

But the Orthodox takes communion very seriously, as it is a mystery of the church.




#13
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,457
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
The Orthodox Church only allows Orthodox Christians to take communion. Everyone can partake of the body, but the blood of the New Covenant is only for those who belong to the church. We also do not take communion at non Orthodox Churches.

Indeed, open communion is a very recent development in protestant churches, because if you go back a hundred or even maybe 50 years ago, nobody practiced open communion. It is a very recent development.

But the Orthodox takes communion very seriously, as it is a mystery of the church.
hi Mopac,

The Orthodox Church may do so - and I understand that reasoning, but I think it is an incorrect application of biblical teaching.  To do - is to divide the body of Christ and to say "I don't need an eye". 

Yet, there is a profound reason to take communion very seriously as I think all churches do, even if they express that seriousness in different ways. In our church for instance, any prospective person who wishes to take communion, is required to be examined by the elders, to see if they are a believer, and secondly to see if they are under discipline or in good standing with another congregation. We always provide a warning to all within the service of the dangers associated with taking the body of our Lord in bad faith or without good conscience.

Yet, I think that if Jesus would not forbid his children from sharing in communion then we should not either, just because they are in a different Christian denomination.  And while I accept that the Orthodox Church is a Christian denomination, I do not accept that it is the only Christian denomination. 

I do find the teachings of the Catholic Church, the Episcopalian and the Orthodox Church on communion too strict, to the point of pharisaical dogmatism and not expressed in the message of love of Christ Jesus. I am sure they would find the modern trend towards open communion distasteful as well.  I find myself, somewhere in the middle, between closed communion and open communion. I think it is the elders who guard the table and are accountable to God for their rationale. 
#14
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
The body of Christ is not divided. This is how things were done since the beginning. I know it isn't an easy thing to accept, especially since protestant churches can only justify themselves by promoting an ahistorical idea of what the church is, but there is only one church, and we are all in communion. 

#15
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
The Orthodox Church is not a denomination. Denominationalism is a protestant thing. Even nondenominationalism is a denomination. There is one church, the Orthodox Catholic Church.

Predenominational.




#16
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Open communion is not loving, because it is written that those who do not discern the body bring condemnation on to themselves.
#17
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,457
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
The body of Christ is not divided. This is how things were done since the beginning. I know it isn't an easy thing to accept, especially since protestant churches can only justify themselves by promoting an ahistorical idea of what the church is, but there is only one church, and we are all in communion. 
There is only one church and we are all in communion and yet you would not let people outside of the Orthodox church take communion. Sorry that is a divided church. put whatever spin you want on it - but you don't change the effect of it. 

the protestant church along with the catholic and the orthodox are all part of the One True Church. You can deny this or even dispute this - but it does not alter the facts.  the protestant church has always been part of the catholic church. the orthodox church and the catholic church were always part of the church and both churches along with churches in Africa, Europe, and Asia made up the True Church. 


#18
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,457
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
The Orthodox Church is not a denomination. Denominationalism is a protestant thing. Even nondenominationalism is a denomination. There is one church, the Orthodox Catholic Church.

Predenominational.

there were factions - even before the church split. There were the European and the Eastern churches. Factions existed - and whether you want to call it pre-denominationalism, it amounts to the same thing. Different factions. 

the Orthodox church is a faction and it is a denomination - Protestantism is not a denomination. There is no denomination called Protestantism. Yet, there are factions.  factions are by the way - not a bad thing. factions demonstrate God's unity over variety. A reflection if you like of the Trinity. A oneness and a many - covenantal aspect which reflects the Trinity in the church 
#19
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,457
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
Open communion is not loving, because it is written that those who do not discern the body bring condemnation on to themselves.
I am not saying it is.

Topic's author
#20
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,249
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
It's kinda like.
There is your religious group and there is one three suburbs over. 
They are Exactly the same exactly, but only different.
Topic's author
#21
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,249
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
What is a SPLINTER?  

SPLINTER 

Who said SPLINTER ?
What.

#22
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7

There is only one church and we are all in communion and yet you would not let people outside of the Orthodox church take communion. Sorry that is a divided church. put whatever spin you want on it - but you don't change the effect of it.

the protestant church along with the catholic and the orthodox are all part of the One True Church. You can deny this or even dispute this - but it does not alter the facts.  the protestant church has always been part of the catholic church. the orthodox church and the catholic church were always part of the church and both churches along with churches in Africa, Europe, and Asia made up the True Church.



The fact is you have an ahistorical idea of the church that none of the church fathers accepted. Schism means cut off. Get is it? Scissors schism. They come from the same word. The Roman Bishop cut Himself and his church off from Orthodoxy after falling into heresy and violating that which was determined inalterable in the ecumenical councils. The protestants broke away from Rome and never came back to Orthodoxy(likely because the Church was isolated from the west and under Turkish rule).


There is. only one Church, The Orthodox Cstholic Church. If you are not in the church, then you are not with the church. Thus, the church is not divided, because the heterodox are not recognized as being in the church.



there were factions - even before the church split. There were the European and the Eastern churches. Factions existed - and whether you want to call it pre-denominationalism, it amounts to the same thing. Different factions.

the Orthodox church is a faction and it is a denomination - Protestantism is not a denomination. There is no denomination called Protestantism. Yet, there are factions.  factions are by the way - not a bad thing. factions demonstrate God's unity over variety. A reflection if you like of the Trinity. A oneness and a many - covenantal aspect which reflects the Trinity in the church

Protestantism isn't a denomination, it is a mentality of disobedience.  That is what defines it. Protest ism. Sure enough, there are 30,000 something protestant denominations because the protestants have a problem with real unity. If they hsve unity, it is superfucial or compromising to the faith. . The Orthodox Church is  very diverse, but we are all in communion. We all have the same faith. Heresies eventually get weeded out. If they don't,  the heretics make their choice to seperate from the body. It isn't that they divide the body of Christ. No, there is one church.

But we certainly don't, and I should speak for myself here, I certainly believe we are  supposed to love each other. I have many evangelical/protestant friends, and we can come together to do good works. However, good works is not the faith. I can not lie and say that they have found the true church.


But God knows who among the heterodox churches willl be united post resurrection to the Orthodox Church. There is one church though, and its Holy Orders stretch back to the apostles. This one church has been faithful to the ecumenical councils and practices a form of Christianity that would be recognizable to the early church. We have a timeless connection with the church throughout all ages that heterodox churches cannot hope to replicate, nor will they because they are all destined to fade away as their members get bored and start their own churches. Ones that are more effective at marketing to those under the sway of the spirit of this age!
#23
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,457
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
The fact is you have an ahistorical idea of the church that none of the church fathers accepted. Schism means cut off. Get is it? Scissors schism. They come from the same word. The Roman Bishop cut Himself and his church off from Orthodoxy after falling into heresy and violating that which was determined inalterable in the ecumenical councils. The protestants broke away from Rome and never came back to Orthodoxy(likely because the Church was isolated from the west and under Turkish rule).
Pray tell Mopac, this is the second time you have said that I have an atypical idea of the church that none of the church fathers accepted, would you care to elaborate on what view it is that you think I have and then provide your view. 

The Roman bishop did not cut himself of from Orthodoxy. The Orthodox faction failed to show up to the meeting because it knew it did not have the numbers to supports its own errant position. 

The Protestants also never broke away from Rome. This is typical misrepresentation of the facts of history. 

There is. only one Church, The Orthodox Cstholic Church. If you are not in the church, then you are not with the church. Thus, the church is not divided, because the heterodox are not recognized as being in the church.

See you are doing it again. You are not preaching love and the unity of the church. you are falling into the error that Jesus warned his disciples not to do. He said - "he is who not against me, is with me". You would prefer to call down lightning from heaven because we are not in your little group. Jesus thankfully, did not have the same strain of thinking. 

Protestantism isn't a denomination, it is a mentality of disobedience.  That is what defines it. Protest ism. Sure enough, there are 30,000 something protestant denominations because the protestants have a problem with real unity. If they hsve unity, it is superfucial or compromising to the faith. . The Orthodox Church is  very diverse, but we are all in communion. We all have the same faith. Heresies eventually get weeded out. If they don't,  the heretics make their choice to seperate from the body. It isn't that they divide the body of Christ. No, there is one church.
LOL! @ Mopac. Protestantism is not about disobedience. It is about freedom and liberty. Protestants were never about protesting AGAINST something. They did not protest against the Catholic church despite the lies and misinformation that some love to spread about. Protestantism has always about protesting for the authority of the Scriptures. If you knew your church history - indeed any history - you would realise that protesting in a positive sense for things was how things used to be done - prior to our modern centuries. Protestants protested FOR the Bible - this is why they formulate positive doctrines such as Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Grata. Don't fall into the same error as the Roman Catholics did by misrepresenting what Protestants stand for. Protestants were also - always about reforming the Church. Reforming the church - or returning the Church to how it was prior to heresies creeping in - such as the papacy, salvation by works or indulgences, praying to the saints or Mary. 

While there are many varieties of protestants, unlike you, I see this one of its strengths. Iron sharpens iron. The Orthodox church does not have the capacity to weed out heresies. It is too authoritarian, like the Roman Catholic church except a 1000 times worse.  This is why it was never able to unite with the church. It chose to remain in error - rather than come back to the truth.  And it has remained arrogantly and stubbornly so ever since. JWs and LDS are similar in the same way. Very authoritarian and very narrow in their scope of congregation. They retain the same doctrines they commenced with. They of course are cults. 

But we certainly don't, and I should speak for myself here, I certainly believe we are  supposed to love each other. I have many evangelical/protestant friends, and we can come together to do good works. However, good works is not the faith. I can not lie and say that they have found the true church.
Well that is nice of you. Yet I would rather note that you are not against Jesus, but rather with him and therefore with us. How can we say that Jesus is LORD unless we are united with him? 


#24
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
The Orthodox Church is certainly not authoritarian or legalistic. It is all about Jesus. Everything points to Jesus. Every practice that is done. The Kingdom of God is preached, and The Way is shown. 

Your viewpoint is in fact typical, but it is ahistorical. It is a  very protestant viewpoint on the church, and it is necessary to justify these churches lacking communion with the Apostolic Church.

Believe it or not, we do love those belonging to hetetodox churches and pray for them. So I said, we even work with them. We pray the good ones will be united to the church at the resurrection. God knows those who are His. 


But know this. The Church has always since the very beginning distinguished itself from groups claiming a different Jesus by Apostolic Succession. All of our bishops have been ordained by other bishops who trace their ordinations back to the Apostles. The Church has its Holy Orders.

Protestants are largely uneducated about the church. They don't really know the church. But if we have maintained for the last 2000 years that we are the very church founded by Jesus, the apostles, the ground  and the pillar of the Truth, it should at least make you wonder what it is about, yeah? 


And what I would say is that the best way to learn is to observe the liturgy(in a language you understand is ideal), ask questions, read recommended literature.



#25
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,457
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
The Orthodox Church is certainly not authoritarian or legalistic. It is all about Jesus. Everything points to Jesus. Every practice that is done. The Kingdom of God is preached, and The Way is shown. 
If that is the case, then good. 

Your viewpoint is in fact typical, but it is ahistorical. It is a  very protestant viewpoint on the church, and it is necessary to justify these churches lacking communion with the Apostolic Church.
Again, I will ask, what is my view and why do you think it is ahistorical? What do you mean it is a protestant viewpoint? What do you mean it is necessary to justify? Who is justifying who and what? 

Believe it or not, we do love those belonging to hetetodox churches and pray for them. So I said, we even work with them. We pray the good ones will be united to the church at the resurrection. God knows those who are His. 
Honestly, words are words. To say you love us - but then exclude us from the church and the table of the Lord is not love, it is pharisaical. The JWs, believe that love is shown by not letting their children have blood transfusions. But it is not love - it is legalism. Jesus always put love ahead of the law. I still don't know how you understand Jesus' teaching rebuking the disciples who wanted to exclude. perhaps you might care to discuss that?

But know this. The Church has always since the very beginning distinguished itself from groups claiming a different Jesus by Apostolic Succession. All of our bishops have been ordained by other bishops who trace their ordinations back to the Apostles. The Church has its Holy Orders.
Yes, I understand your church's position. The historical position - church history is not in agreement with your position.  The apostolic succession not biblical but based in some church traditions. 

Protestants are largely uneducated about the church. They don't really know the church. But if we have maintained for the last 2000 years that we are the very church founded by Jesus, the apostles, the ground  and the pillar of the Truth, it should at least make you wonder what it is about, yeah? 
I think you are incorrect. It seems to me that the Orthodox community is largely ignorant of the protestant position. And also of church history. 

And what I would say is that the best way to learn is to observe the liturgy(in a language you understand is ideal), ask questions, read recommended literature.
Yes, I have read quite widely in relation to theological and church historical matters.  I however will read - widely and not just a particular point of view. 
Topic's author
#26
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,249
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Asking who were the first original Christians ?  Isn't really a question hey. 
You'd never be happy with a answer. I can't even think of the source you need to hear it from. 

Well whoever The OC's are they wouldn't be called the Catholics or the orthodox for they'd be known as the Christians FULL STOP.
No need to be a flavor of Christian. 

Things called "Religious groups" existed before your religious group existed. 
And thats bloody horrible. 

Buttttttttttt  IF YOU BELIEVE IN GOD YOU JOIN A RELIGIOUS GROUP.   It Makes sense right ? 

' RANT MODE  AVOIDANCE ' 
enter ,  press press press.
Man that was a close one  

Good game.  
Good game.


#27
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
Takingnpart in the liturgy and seeing it in practice is not the same thing as reading.
Topic's author
#28
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,249
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@Mopac
Catholic architecture 

#29
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
What is wrong with joining a religious "group"?
Topic's author
#30
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,249
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@janesix
Joining the wrong one.