Mopac

I know what I believe. 

I also know that my use of the word is in line with BOTH Merriam-Webster and Oxford.

Since you say that these two dictionaries which are both very authoritative disagree, reason makes it very clear that you are the one who is confused, not me.

Funny how the only people who insist that we should be stoning people to death are the non-Christians.

You might find this article interesting...

I dispute your claim that Oxford's definition contradicts Merriam-Webster. 

I also am not interested continuing this argument, because I am not going to budge on my position, and it is clear to me that you are making the choice to be incredulous. It certainly isn't a reasonable thing.

Stephen is not a Christian, he exclusively uses the bible as a means to stir up strife.

He certainly does not use the bible as we orthodox do. In fact, the way he uses the bible is the logical end of sola scriptura, a protestant belief. Really, he is only a problem for them. For us, it is easy to dismiss what he says with, "that is not what the church believes or teaches".

I am open about my beliefs. I even have opinions. Stephen here as I said, only cares about stirring up strife. 

Why such a preoccupation with abberant sexual behavior? This is a big hang up for some people. Especially the people who practice these things. Very rarely do people want to be told something contrary to what they believe, especially if that makes them wrong. People would much rather hear things that give them validation or legitimize them. But our approach to things of this nature is to be charitable, not to condemn people. However, it is not loving to tell someone a lie, especially if that lie makes them more bold in their sin.

There has been a very intentional effort in philosophy for the last couple hundred years to replace Christianity. The result is that words don't mean the same thing anymore. If you can't change what was written, change the meaning of the words that were written!

If nobody accepted this definition, it wouldn't be in the dictionary.

If nobody accepted this definition, how do you explain me?

I am no innovator here.

The only people who reject this definition are atheists, and that is because if they were to accept this definition, it would reveal them as fools.

The atheistic philosophers of the 1800s at least had the balls to be open about their rebellion against reality. Nowadays, because we are several generations into this nihilistic worldview dominating.the world, people are more confused and deceived.

This is how you get people to consent to something they don't really consent to. Confuse language, and people will consent to being enslaved or even destroyed.

Sure, on some basic level.

But if you don't have a love for the truth above all things, whatever idolatry pollutes your heart would compromise your ability to love purely. 

That is really what our spiritual discipline is built around, following the commandment, which is to love God with all your the heart, soul, mind, and strength. Then to love your neighbor as yourself.

Or as it is also written,

"the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned"

The pure heart is very important.

But going back to the nihilist thing. Most atheists probably don't consider themselves nihilists, but as the God we believe i is the ultimate reality, to say our God doesn't exist is an overt confession of nihilism. The philosophers of the 1800s had a better understanding of what atheism was than people these days. They were also very open about being anti-Christianity. The people who followed these philosophers are the ones that have sculpted the dominant worldview. They have also changed language in such a way as to make orthodox Christianity unintelligible. When we say one thing, an image of something other than what we are actually saying is imagined. 

Most people who call themselves atheists don't really understand what that means. If they did, they wouldn't call themselves atheists. They might at the very least say, "I know God exists, but I don't believe any religion".

In fact, that is what a deist is. Deist is simply the Latin equivilent of the Greek word "Theist". So to profess deism, or theism is to say, "There is an ultimate reality".

Of course, deism came to eventually be understood as a particular conception of God, but from a purely etymological sense it is simply a confession that a god or God exists.

Most people who are casualties of the nihilistic spirit that permeates our age are unwitting victims.

From our worldview, we consider every human to be made in the image of God. So to love mankind is very much like loving God.

All these different forms of nihilism are simply branches off the trunk of nihilism.

Which is a funny thing to say, because nihilism is a dead and rotting tree.

I have no problem with logic. Reason itself is a good thing.

However, an over reliance on logic can very easily lead to absurdities. It in itself can be maladaptive.

All one has to do is observe how so many people have used reason to place themselves into an epistemological black hole. Even becoming solipsists. When you get to the point to where all action must be reasoned out or understood logically, it can put a very real freeze on a person.

I'll move my response there then.

I don't support this protestant phenomina called conversion therapy, no. That certainly isn't how we orthodox do things.

You have to have faith in order to be healed. That involves effort on the part of the person being healed. It would be unethical from our persppective to say, strap someone to a table and electroshock the gay out of them against their will.

I don't really know what goes on at these "conversion therapy" camps. Don't care to know. I'm sure it is atrocious.

Of course it is a mental illness.

You are a nihilist, that being the case, I can't take you seriously when you ask for evidence. Evidence is an arbitrary thing to you.

You might think you care about the truth, but because you have no charity I know this isn't the case. 

If you equate all experience as being a feeling.

Certainly people feel like they have no control over their actions.

I would say that for one to deny that they have choice is maladaptive. I believe that people can reprogram their minds. 

I certainly believe that homosexuality is a mental illness. One that can be cured even.

But not if you are prideful about it.

The experience of having choice.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

There is nothing unreasonable about what I am saying. Which is, you have no hope of understanding us as long as you refuse to use language as we do.

You do this because you have no love of truth. If you cared about what was true, you'd adopt a more charitable attitude for the sake of knowledge.

Oh yeah, sure. I get it. They used the same reasoning Hitler used to get the Jews.

Except they killed ten times as many Orthodox Christians as Hitler killed Jews.

That's totally justifiable, because you know, all heirarchy is inherently anti-communist. Even church heirarchy.

If youbwere gay in China they would kill you. If you were gay in Saudi Arabia, they'd kill you. None of these people are Christian.

Historical "persecution" of homosexuals is not in any way the sole domain of Christians. Most civilized people had enough sense to realize that this type of abberant sexuality is harmful. Sure, there were exceptions. Doesn't change the fact that it is maladaptive and harmful to society.

Literally nobody actually believes in what you call free will.

Except maybe schizophrenics.

Yeah, that's what the Soviet Union said when they destroyed our churches, slaughtered our episcopate, and put us into work camps.

But you presume to know what a soul is. You certainly wouldn't allow yourself to be taught by us what we believe.

Really, I could just as easily accuse you of spreading misinformation that leads to the persecution of my people.

My position is not a logical conclusion. That is why your request for me to make it so is not reasonable. In fact, that is our biggest critique of western theology. Scholasticism. Overly rationalistic. Misses the point.

Your worldview descends from scholasticism.

The Ultimate Reality was revealed to us as being God.

Certainly nothing else could be a greater God than this.

If laws were passed that dictated that sodomy or sexual immorality deserved punishment, I wouldn't see anything wrong with this.

Hope thst clears things up.

Perverts should be grateful that the laws are so relaxed, because they certainly are not wntitled to be treated so kindly. If people who cheated on their spouses were prosecuted, I would say the cheaters had it coming. 

Just to make it clear that I am not simply picking on those who wear leather assless chaps

Supreme Being and Ultimate Reality mean the same thing.

We've been over this.

If you don't want to call The Ultimate Reality God, thas t is your business. To us orthodox, that is what God means. If you want to know what we believe, you have to use our language. If you go into any area of study, you have to use the language of that study.

I'm pretty sure I said the opposite of whatever it is you think I said.

The modern worldview was specifically constructed to negate Christianity.

What is one of the ways this is accomplished? Confuse language. Make people superstitious.

I am a very.rational person, but you wouldn't know that because everything I say to you goes through the fairies and unicorns filter.

Yeah, lock all of humanity up in digital masturbation chambers while we hand over our sovereinty to innanimate machines that will become defunct the next stray solar flare.

Evolution

If there is no soul, then psychology is a nonsensical area of study. "Psyche" is literally the Greek word for soul.

Of course there is a soul. You just don't know what it is.

It is also definition 1 in Merriam Webster's collegiate dictionary.

The Supreme or Ultimate Reality.

Well, this is what it boils down to.

Because you won't accept that the word "God" with a capital "G" refers to ultimate reality, you won't ever be talking about the same thing as me.

I cannot provide evidence to support your superstitions.

If you believe the ultimate reality is the universe, that makes you a pantheist.

In other words, you believe God exists. 

I am not a pantheist however, I am probably more accurately described as a panentheist.

Of course God exists. I am certainly condescending to your ignorance.

I can't present evidence to you, because you wouldn't know what evidence is. You after all, are superstitious concerning God and unwilling to be taught different. You aleady know what God is, so that is that.

It is also the  reason you'll never understand what I believe with this attitude. It will forever be gibberish to you.

Are you trying to say that observation is what gives something existence?

If there is reality as in appears to be, there must be reality as it truly is.

The Ultimate Reality is that reality as it truly is.

The observable universe would be a reality as it appears to be.

If you were to walk into either church, you would have the same liturgy. The priests would teach the same doctrine. You would read the same saints.

You don't understand how the church works, or really even what it is. You are looking at it as if it was Roman Catholicism or something.  You think our bishops are dictators who rule over the church or something. The church is certainly more than just a human institution. The bishops have a job, and they certainly must give account. Bishops even get deposed.

But you who simply want to cause strife judge us for not considering you part of the church, and then go on to tell us how we should conduct our own inner affairs based on your own reasoning.

The church is perfect surely as Christ Himself is perfect, for The Church is the body of Christ. The visible Church is The Orthodox Church, and just as Christ was judged by the religious hypocrites and followers of their own traditions of men, so too has The Church been judged throughout the ages by those who are offended by its very existence.

In Christ there are two natures, one divine and one human. It is easy to only look at Christ's human nature and judge Him for his human traits. Indeed, that is what those who crucified Christ did. So it is the case with those who would destroy The Church.

I haven't created a problem for myself. 

The Ultimate Reality cannot be contingent on observation. Its existence must precede observation. Otherwise, it isn't what it is.

Don't let me get in the way of your egotism.

Rather, it is self defeating for you to deny Ultimate Reality.

The Ultimate Reality Is.

Whether you accept it or not.

All the quotes you post...

... are they from yourself?

You certainly aren't quoting anyone else on this site as the OP would imply.

It comes down to this.

You will not accept the things we say because the shamans who define your language have defined  this language(very intentionally i would say)in a manner that makes what we believe unintelligible.

You will never understand what we believe so long as you use the language as defined by the enemies of what we believe.

If you want to have an understanding of what we believe, you have to come to a common understanding of the language that we use.