Relationship With God

Author: Salixes

Posts

Read-only
Total: 41
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
The Orthodox Catholic Church is not a denomination. I recently created a topic on this. We can discuss that there.

The doctrinal formulations of the church were all originally written in Greek. All the ecumenical councils before the schism of Rome took place in the east. 

Is it really so hard to believe that western Christianity is corrupt? 


God bless you all for trying, but the historical church never ceased to be, and we certainly pray for reunion. The ecclesiastical anarchy of western Christianity is a legitimite threat to keeping the integrity of the faith. 

Certainly, Jesus Christ is a person that we relate to. If you don't recognize who God is though, your faith can't be anything other than blind. We know the God we worship.




Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret

n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Mopac
how do you view the following?

"The first ontological argument in the Western Christian tradition was proposed by Anselm of Canterbury in his 1078 work Proslogion. Anselm defined God as "a being than which no greater can be conceived", and argued that this being must exist in the mind, even in the mind of the person who denies the existence of God."

your ultimate reality talk reminds me of the above kind of thinking. 
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@Tradesecret
Not sure I understand your reasoning there. Hallucinations have no bearing on this topic at all.  It is absurd to say that you can have a personal relationship with reality if by way of hallucinations. In fact it is nonsense. Hallucinations and reality are not cut from the same ilk. Although it is part of our reality that hallucinations are had by some persons.  
Come on. You know very well that what I said was:

In practical terms, a relationship with God would involve having hallucinations. 
And it has everything to do with the topic since that in fact is what a relationship with God actually is; hallucinating.

And you would be very aware of the number of times that I have posted "that" damning video which makes every theist go conspicuously quiet.


Care to comment this time, or do you need a bit more time to concoct a way out of it?

Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Salixes
Not sure I understand your reasoning there. Hallucinations have no bearing on this topic at all.  It is absurd to say that you can have a personal relationship with reality if by way of hallucinations. In fact it is nonsense. Hallucinations and reality are not cut from the same ilk. Although it is part of our reality that hallucinations are had by some persons.  

Come on. You know very well that what I said was:

In practical terms, a relationship with God would involve having hallucinations. 
And it has everything to do with the topic since that in fact is what a relationship with God actually is; hallucinating.

Knowing the reality of God and having a personal relationship with Him is a fact of life. It is neither a delusion nor a hallucination. To suggest otherwise is to speak of things you clearly are clueless about.  Fact is - it the existence of God that most reasonably explains the existence of all other life. Most scientists accept that prior to everything existing there was nothing that existed. In other words, there are very few scientists who would suggest that our universe and everything in has always existed. Even Hawking accepts this as fact. He says there was at one point in time - nothing. Well EXCEPT the magical laws of science which must always exist. Problem is nothing existed and then for no reason nothing exploded and turned nothing into laws which provide stability and concreteness and order. The existence of God clearly is more probable that this happening. Only a delusional and bigoted fool would think otherwise. 



And you would be very aware of the number of times that I have posted "that" damning video which makes every theist go conspicuously quiet.


Care to comment this time, or do you need a bit more time to concoct a way out of it?
I have commented on it many times before. It is a typical balls up by Dawkins. Attacking strawman who rely upon their own experience and then interestingly not actually providing an answer. Did you even listen to Dawkins? Not an argument in his diatribe. He simply asserts that if the poor man was born in one country he would follow their god. Incidentally, that is a nonsense argument. It is like saying if I was born in Australia I would be an atheist for no rational reason but only because I was born here. Stupid assertion. But not only that Dawkins missed the intent of this poor man. He was saying - that he not every other person born in the same country has personally experienced a personal relationship with God. If you has studied, which clearly you have not, you would realise that Hindus don't claim a personal relationship with God. Neither do Muslims. Neither did the ancient Romans or Greeks. It is an unique Christian and Jewish thing. But your ignorance is evident to all. 

As for Dawkins comment on hallucination in that humans are susceptible to them, is he ruling out that his own position based on the place he was born is actually causing him a hallucination? Not at all. Yet, I would suggest that anyone who cannot see all the evidence for God is delusional. It is the only rational explanation for why they miss the obvious. (This argument is based on the assertion of Dawkins only)

Yet, anyone who has studied psychology understands is that what religious folk discuss in relation of their religion is not within the bounds of what hallucinations are understood.   It is neither delusion nor hallucination - and just by you referring to a has been (celebrity type) person does not make what he says correct anymore than Mark Taylor selling air-conditioners make him correct. Dawkins is not even celebrated amongst Atheistic scientists as anything more than a quack. 
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
The Orthodox Catholic Church is not a denomination. I recently created a topic on this. We can discuss that there.
Yes it is. just because the Orthodox church denies it, does not change the fact. In fact according to the True Church, the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox church was excommunicated from the table of Christ. The orthodox church still needs to repent of its schismatic ways and return to the Church for forgiveness. 

The doctrinal formulations of the church were all originally written in Greek. All the ecumenical councils before the schism of Rome took place in the east. 
So what? It was the Eastern Church who was judged by God with the Islamic hordes.  They were decimated. The orthodox church turned its back on the truth. 


Is it really so hard to believe that western Christianity is corrupt? 
LOL! All humanity is corrupt. All people are corrupt. And all churches are corrupt.  Are you really saying that you think there is no corruptness in the Orthodox church? Why then are there numerous denominations within its fold - and why do their views differ across the various countries - including even some denying others the table of the Lord. 

God bless you all for trying, but the historical church never ceased to be, and we certainly pray for reunion. The ecclesiastical anarchy of western Christianity is a legitimite threat to keeping the integrity of the faith. 
Although it is true that often forces come from both outside and inside, it is those who abandon the Word of God in favour of their non-biblical traditions who are the primary threat to the Church. 


Certainly, Jesus Christ is a person that we relate to. If you don't recognize who God is though, your faith can't be anything other than blind. We know the God we worship.
I know the God I worship. 
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
So, let's recap, shall we?

When the loony, dorky-looking Scotsman with his eyes practically popping out of his skull says that has met the risen and living Lord Jesus Christ and has walked with God for 50 years he wasn't hallucinating?

Right?

He wasn't at all, one little bit hallucinating?
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
I created a topic for this subject, you can bring up your points there.


Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@n8nrgmi
how do you view the following?

"The first ontological argument in the Western Christian tradition was proposed by Anselm of Canterbury in his 1078 work Proslogion. Anselm defined God as "a being than which no greater can be conceived", and argued that this being must exist in the mind, even in the mind of the person who denies the existence of God."

your ultimate reality talk reminds me of the above kind of thinking.


The Ultimate Reality is not contingent on the mind, rather, the mind is contingent on The Ultimate Reality.


That is my thought.

The west embraced a scholastic approach to theology, which is why arguments such as these gained prevalence after the schism. Compare that to the Eastern approach of hesychism.

In the west, a theologian is someone who is educated. In the east, a theologian is someone who prays. The west has more of an outward focus, and an undue emphasis on reason. The east understands that the pure in heart see God, and that a good education alone is not sufficient.


It is important to note that we also take education very seriously, but we understand that the faith is moreso revealed than come to as a logical conclusion.

Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
The west embraced a scholastic approach to theology, which is why arguments such as these gained prevalence after the schism. Compare that to the Eastern approach of hesychism.
Mopac, you are picking at straws.  It is well known that the Eastern approach resorted to mysticism following the gods of the Far East. It also known that the written Word was too difficult for them to interpret so they invented an entirely unreasonable form of interpretation. In the West, the Church followed the Word as it was written and attempted to understand it from that point of view. This is not scholasticism, it is practical. 

In the west, a theologian is someone who is educated. In the east, a theologian is someone who prays. The west has more of an outward focus, and an undue emphasis on reason. The east understands that the pure in heart see God, and that a good education alone is not sufficient.
Again you resort to articulate things you don't actually understand.  In the West, a theologian is only a theologian if they have faith. Education is not even essential.  Education is not however frowned upon but it is valued. But its value is still subservient to faith. Theologians by their nature are introspective and prayerful.  They understand that without prayer and total reliance upon the Spirit of God, none of their knowledge is worth anything. While there may be an element of truth in the notion that reason is elevated higher than it ought, in the East superstitions, traditions, and experientialism is elevated higher than it ought. Both of these elevations from the West and the East are dangerous because they devalue the Word of God and faith in it. Hence it is incorrect for you to say that the East understands that the pure in heart see God because by implication you suggest that the West is neither pure in heart nor see God. 

The Eastern church is clearly corrupt, just like the Roman Catholic Church.  This is evidenced in one sense by the billions of dollars they have salted away despite the obvious poverty of many of their members and the communities they live in. The Eastern Church also has the ring of arrogance about it, never conceding any wrong doing, always expecting others to concede to it, and always failing to bring itself under the Lordship of Christ and his written Word. One example of this is its clear hatred of the bible, calling those who take it seriously as idolaters. It would rather rely upon its superstitions, mysticism, and own wisdom than hear the clear word of God. The Catholic church is no different, taking its source of wisdom not from the Bible, but from its clerics, traditions, and reason. Even the current pope is influenced by the voices in the world attempting to change its doctrines. 

The Protestant Church is not immune to corruption either. It has over the years since God birthed it fallen back into listening to the voices of the world and not to the Word of God. Yes, like each of the Eastern Orthodox, and the Catholic church, there are pockets, and sometimes large pockets which remain faithful to God and His Word. 

Mopac, while I do not dislike the Orthodox Church, and indeed have much time for its history and teachings, when it maintains like you do that it is the ONLY true church then it reeks of being a cult.  Not only that, it is an inaccurate assessment of history and teachings. History is never neutral. I accept that the Western history books will be biased - but so will the Eastern history books. It is therefore incumbent on those who do read the history that we do not allow our biased and prejudices to overwhelm the truth. 

It is important to note that we also take education very seriously, but we understand that the faith is moreso revealed than come to as a logical conclusion.
And again I reiterate, the Western Church understands that faith is of greater value than pure reason or education or tradition. And we do not equate tradition with faith. All traditions must be firmly based in the Scriptures, or else they nothing more than superstition. Hence, the creeds are based Scripturally in the Word of God. 
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
Mopac, you are picking at straws.  It is well known that the Eastern approach resorted to mysticism following the gods of the Far East. It also known that the written Word was too difficult for them to interpret so they invented an entirely unreasonable form of interpretation. In the West, the Church followed the Word as it was written and attempted to understand it from that point of view. This is not scholasticism, it is practical.




Our approach is consistent with how the ancient church did things. Even in The New Testament, it can be seen that The Church has always interpreted scripture typologically.


To accuse us of following the gods of the far east is unfounded and ignorant.


The first thousand years of church history demonstrate that everything important happened in the east.



You don't speak from a position of knowledge, but presumption.



And again I reiterate, the Western Church understands that faith is of greater value than pure reason or education or tradition. And we do not equate tradition with faith. All traditions must be firmly based in the Scriptures, or else they nothing more than superstition. Hence, the creeds are based Scripturally in the Word of God.


The Orthodox Church agrees, and presents a far better example of what this looks like.


That is why I am Orthodox. 




in the East superstitions, traditions, and experientialism is elevated higher than it ought. This devalues the Word of God and faith in it. Hence it is incorrect for you to say that the East understands that the pure in heart see God because by implication you suggest that the West is neither pure in heart nor see God.


The faith is something to be lived out, thus it is experiential. While the west argued over stupid things like the dichotomy between faith and works, we have always understood that faith without works is dead faith, and functionally no faith at all.


We understand the difference between Holy Tradition and custom. You see what we do, and cannot tell the difference. You do not judge rightly. 


Superstitious people always will be around, and what The Church does is mercifully guide the superstitious into growing out of these things. How effectice that is depends entirely on the faith of the one being instructed. 


The Roman church has been corrupt for over a thousand years, and the reformation was a direct consequence of this. 



No, western Christendom doesn't even understand The Trinity, and it is in no small part a consequence of having corrupting the creed, which as I have said before is in violation of the ecumenical councils and church consensus. That is why Rome isn't Orthodox. 





The Eastern church is clearly corrupt, just like the Roman Catholic Church.  This is evidenced in one sense by the billions of dollars they have salted away despite the obvious poverty of many of their members and the communities they live in. The Eastern Church also has the ring of arrogance about it, never conceding any wrong doing, always expecting others to concede to it, and always failing to bring itself under the Lordship of Christ and his written Word. One example of this is its clear hatred of the bible, calling those who take it seriously as idolaters. It would rather rely upon its superstitions, mysticism, and own wisdom than hear the clear word of God. The Catholic church is no different, taking its source of wisdom not from the Bible, but from its clerics, traditions, and reason. Even the current pope is influenced by the voices in the world attempting to change its doctrines.

All of this is a load of nonsense. The church does help its members, both lovally and over seas. You are only seeing what you want to see. The church I go to not only has helped me personally, but we even send money over seas to churches who are being persecuted in the middle east.

It is the duty of every Christian to personally do charity work. Do we Orthodox like our churches to be beautiful? We sure do. People volunteer to paint icons and do intricate wood work. People donate things specifically to beautify the church. 

We don't hate the bible. We read psalms in their entirety. We read entire chapters of the bible during our liturgies. We read scripture in such a way as to make the meaning pop out, even showing how types in the Old Testament scriptures are fulfilled in Christ. Everything we do is about Christ.

Have you ever even experienced our worahip? We don't go to church to be entertained by rock bands, we go to church to pray for the whole world and.glorify God. We don't sing songs about worshipping God, we worship God. We don't sing songs about how God makes us feel, we gloridy Him for trampling down death and raising us up with Him in His ressurection.

None  of what you ar e saying is even remotely true, you are judging on appearances. Your understanding of the church is ahistorical, and the saints died to preserve the integrity of the church, which they certainly understood as a visible body here on Earth with Holy Orders in direct lineage to the apostles, preserving the Gospel of Truth.

You don't even know what the church is. If you did, you'd realize that accusing it of not admitting it's wrongs is totally absurd. The Church doesn't commit evil, any evil commited by those in the church comes from deviation from Orthodoxy. We understand the importance of confessing sins. We understand the importance of living a life of repentance. 

The Orthodox Church is the Catholic  Church, and you evangelicals can't even tell the difference between the true church and the schismatic church your ancestors revolted against.




The Protestant Church is not immune to corruption either. It has over the years since God birthed it fallen back into listening to the voices of the world and not to the Word of God. Yes, like each of the Eastern Orthodox, and the Catholic church, there are pockets, and sometimes large pockets which remain faithful to God and His Word
Nonsense. There is no protestant church, there are thousands of protestant churches. You want to know the fruit of protestantism? Infecting the world with secularism, antinomian Christianity, textual criticism, prosperity gospel, baby churches with no one older than 30, self declared prophets, sanctimonious babbling in gibberish, and an umbrella church that makes a home for every heresy that exists. A church with amnesia, no history.

Protestant churh? What a joke. A kingdom divided against itself that cannot stand. 

God knows who are his in the sea of heresy known as protestantism. But God forbid any of these denominations who cannot even claim to be older than a few hundred years be the church of Christ. 


Mopac, while I do not dislike the Orthodox Church, and indeed have much time for its history and teachings, when it maintains like you do that it is the ONLY true church then it reeks of being a cult.  Not only that, it is an inaccurate assessment of history and teachings. History is never neutral. I accept that the Western history books will be biased - but so will the Eastern history books. It is therefore incumbent on those who do read the history that we do not allow our biased and prejudices to overwhelm the truth.
The truth is that The Orthodox Catholic Church has always maintained that it is the true church, and we will never conpromise the historical understanding of what the church is with the heretical beliefs propogated by heterodox churches who are trying to justify their independence from it.

I don't need anyone to interpret church history for me, I can read the primary sources myself and that is precisely what lead me to The Orthodox Catholic Church, the only church that even resembles the ancient church! 

I wasn't born Orthodox. I am not an eastern European. What bias lead me to Orthodoxy? I was taught my whole life history from the Roman perspective. Guess what? I found out it was all lies.

How grateful I am that The Orthodox Church is the original church, and not Rome! How grateful I am to have found Christianity in its enlightened completeness after spending so much time in protestant and evangelical churches who can't even approach the catholicity of the true church.

The reformation will reach its proper end when Christians in the west return to the church instead of trying to rebuild it themselves!