Those Battling 45,000 Denominations

Author: RoderickSpode

Posts

Total: 308
#91
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
So you agree that it's not a Christian nation, or you think that painting somehow implies it's a Christian nation? As usual your statement is unclear. "This is what I think about the United states being a Christian nation," link to a painting in the Capitol wherein no Christian iconography is present, and indeed grecoroman icons ARE. 
#92
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Back to cult again. Poor things. 
#93
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
*looks at watch*




#94
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@RoderickSpode
All this because I asked you the difference between a religion and a cult (which you have still not explained adequately). 

I tell you what there is alot going on in those three posts of your so lets justgl get back to basica and maybe we can resolce this.

Just tell me the difference as you see it and we will go from there.
#95
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
A religion is a "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".

A cult is "formal religious veneration" or "a system of religious beliefs and ritual".


We in the Orthodox Church have rituals. This is the cultic with aspect of our religion. Our religion is not the ritual.


In our church we teach through icons. Images. Many pagans are familiar with ritualistic forms of veneration. As that is the case, we make use of ritualistic forms of veneration to speak to the type of people that sort of thing speaks to. These cults are icons in themselves, making visible the invisible, acting as types and shadows of the real thing.


And truly, that is part of what makes our faith Catholic. 




#96
croweupc
croweupc's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 57
0
0
4
croweupc's avatar
croweupc
0
0
4
-->
@RoderickSpode
I grew up in a church that had “the truth”. If you did not follow the plan of salvation as taught in the Bible as they understood it you were not going to heaven. This argument works great on those who accept this position. Arguments are not one size fits all. The point of pointing out the many denominations is this: if the God of the Bible is the one true God, he did a terrible job at explaining exactly what he wanted us to do. It is also confusing why a god would need to use fallible humans to communicate to us what he wants. If God is powerful enough to build Universes, he should be able to communicate in a way that is not subjective to personal opinions. 
#97
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@croweupc
Though you may not find this a satisfying answer, true as it is...

We have free will. God is not a rapist, and does not force Himself onto us. We distance ourselves from God when out of our own free will prefer the vanities of this world and the feeding of our passions.

Jesus said "Blessed are the pure in heart, they will see God."


So seeing God is a matter of purifying the heart, the nous. This is our intellect as well as our motivations. What leads us and influences us. Whether you see God or not, God is there.

The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is God. It should be no hard thing to recognize that this God exists.

That is the God we the Orthodox Catholic Church believes in. We witness this in Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.







#98
croweupc
croweupc's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 57
0
0
4
croweupc's avatar
croweupc
0
0
4
-->
@Mopac
God does not need to be a rapist to be clear about who he is and what he wants. You mentioned vanities of this world but ignore the vanities in the Bible and all throughout the history of the church. People have died horribly because they believed something different than the Orthodox Church. I have no problem with the term God depending on how one defines it, but when you say you know what God wants me to do, I’d like to know how. If you suggest that the Bible is God’s word, how could you possibly know that is true, especially in light of history. The NT manuscripts show changes have been made, and the oldest OT is in Greek. We have copies of copies of translations of copies of books long gone from history with no way to verify the accuracy of the content and the validity of the claims.
#99
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@croweupc
The Ultimate Reality is God.

Can you think of anything greater? Of course not.

The law and the prophets is summed up as "Love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. Love your neighbor as yourself"

How do you see this for yourself? Don't wait until your heart is pure before going to church, go to church and let it purify your heart. The Orthodox Church knows what it is doing. It is science. We also, having been doing this for thousands of years, know that speaking of the mysteries plainly does not communicate them. This is of course an observation that is confirmed in scripture when it speaks of those who see being blind and those who hear being deaf.

The church does not believe in persecuting heretics or pagans. There have been times in history when secular governments have done these things, believing it was their duty to do so, but the church is not a secular authority. Even when governments tried to merge church and state, the chur h has always maintained that it should be distinct. 

The bible is our book, we know what it is for, how it should be interpreted, etc. The Church wrote the new testament and compiled its scriptures. You say the oldest old testament is in Greek. The Orthodox Church uses this as its old testament. But bibliolatry is certainly an error. We know what we teach, and the bible is used to teach that.


We know what we teach is true, because it is something that can be witnessed and seen for yourself. I can't really transfer that epignosis to you, it is something that you would aquire through the church. 
#100
croweupc
croweupc's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 57
0
0
4
croweupc's avatar
croweupc
0
0
4
-->
@Mopac
I grew up in the church. I taught Sunday School and Bible Studies for years, even preached. I was 34 when I left the faith. I know what the Bible says. Did you not study the council of Nicea? There has been disagreement in the church since the beginning. Paul even shares his own disagreements in his letters. There has never been a consensus and never will be. 

Religious ideas and deeply held beliefs have a way of blinding people. Think about all of the crazy beliefs people have. Why is it you think you are not prone to the same type of thinking? I know you believe what you are saying, I’ve been there before. My question is this: why do you believe the Bible is God’s word? There is nothing in the Bible ancient humans didn’t know about. If it contained for instance the cure for cancer or the germ theory of disease it would be a little more believable. There is no benefit to humanity in that book, just rules and laws. It contains a lot of answers with no explanations. I encourage you to look at your own faith with the same criticism you view other faiths and ask yourself if yours would hold up under the same level of scrutiny.
#101
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@croweupc
It sounds to me like the form of Christianity you were exposed to was heretical to begin with.

See, being a protestant, you of course didn't have the church. You didn't have holy tradition. Your entire religion is based off the bible and either your own interpretation of it or some unenlightened preacherman's.

The Christianity you know is not the church.


Paul's disputes were solved within his lifetime. This alleged dispute is overstated. Paul was in the church. This along with the alleged difficulties at the first ecumenical council are the only way protestants can justify their existence outside of the church. The ourpose of the ecumenical councils is to make clear what the chur h always taught. Arians are not Christians. They may be able to get away with calling themselves Christians in protestant land, but we the Orthodox Church know the faith, and this is not it.


The purpoose of every single ecumenical council was to make clear what the church hss always taught in the face of rising heresy. We Orthodox sctually do study these things. Protestants do not. If they did, they would be forced to acknowledge that the churches they belong to are can not be the historical and true Orthodox Catholic Church.


So no, I am not surprised you fell away. You never knew the faith to begin with. Orthodox Christianity is very different, and it would be a mistake to think that familiarity with protestant forms of Christianity is familiarity with Orthodox Christianity.



#102
croweupc
croweupc's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 57
0
0
4
croweupc's avatar
croweupc
0
0
4
-->
@Mopac
All Christians say the same thing. My version is right and yours is wrong. Almost all religions use this same argument. There is just one major problem with this, Catholics have left the faith too. I feel sorry for you because nothing will ever change your mind. I will gladly change my mind if evidence were to prove beyond reasonable doubt it’s true. I most certainly have reasonable doubt!
#103
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@croweupc
The proof is really in church history. Where can we start?


The New Testament that everyone uses to this day was determined by the church hundreds of years after the events depicted in them. The "canon" being identical to what Saint Athanasius recommended. Saint Athanasius being the Orthodox Catholic Bishop of Alexandria.

The Roman Catholic Church is in schism, and the easiest way this can be shown is in their altering of the creed of the church.

At the council of Chalcedon, it was ruled that any change to the creed would result in anathema, or a curse. This was reiterated at the council of constantinople in 879-880,

This is not something that can be done without a true ecumenical council.

But Rome added "and the son" to the creed without consulting the rest of the church.


Also, the bishop of Rome asserts supremacy over the entire church, which is simply not orthodox. They created a secular government in the papal states. 


So if you ask an Orthodox if the Pope is Catholic, instead of getting a "Duh, of course", you might instead get a "Well, actually..."



The Orthodox Catholic Church is the very historical church of the apostles, the very one which Jesus promised "the gates of hell will not overcome"



#104
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@croweupc
You don't really know my faith, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't make assumptions about why I believe. You are right though in that I am very secure that we have  seen the true light, that we have received the heavenly spirit; that we have found the true faith, worshipping the undivided Trinity: for He hath saved us.

#105
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Unlike protestantism, we do have an understanding of spiritual delusion and a real therapeutic method that works. 

You won't see anyone rolling on the floor babbling in gibberish sanctimoniously here! We know what spirit that comes from, and it ain't holy!

#106
croweupc
croweupc's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 57
0
0
4
croweupc's avatar
croweupc
0
0
4
-->
@Mopac
In North Korea they believe in things we consider to be unbelievable things because we didn’t grow up in their culture and under their education system. When we are taught to believe something from an early age it is hard to see the errors. When we are raised in church, taught by the church, only read material produced by the church, it is identical to how North Koreans believe what they believe. 
#107
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@croweupc
In North Korea they believe in things we consider to be unbelievable things because we didn’t grow up in their culture and under their education system. When we are taught to believe something from an early age it is hard to see the errors. When we are raised in church, taught by the church, only read material produced by the church, it is identical to how North Koreans believe what they believe. 

This all falls within the category of Karma....karma of course has many dynamics fundamentalism can never touch or understand. Fundamentalism doesn't know why there are other belief systems understood in a rational way, only irrational. 
#108
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@croweupc
I was raised by sex, drugs, and rock and roll, so your narrative simply doesn't apply to me.
#109
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@croweupc
All Christians say the same thing. My version is right and yours is wrong. Almost all religions use this same argument. There is just one major problem with this, Catholics have left the faith too. I feel sorry for you because nothing will ever change your mind. I will gladly change my mind if evidence were to prove beyond reasonable doubt it’s true. I most certainly have reasonable doubt!

The simple answer is that there never was a right "church" or denomination, Jesus was not about that at all. That was never the point of the Gospels. The point of the Gospels of course was to connect the individual to God, to have a connection between the soul and the spirit in a real way. 
#110
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@EtrnlVw
Is that why Jesus said, "...I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."?

Is that why Jesus said, "...if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."?
#111
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mopac
Is that why Jesus said, "...I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."?

The gates of hell will never prevail against the confession Peter made, So have I made the same confession. The church are those who follow the teachings of Jesus. 

Is that why Jesus said, "...if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."?

Because the "church" should understand the Gospel. Sine we all know organized religion has fallen short of the Gospels on so many levels it was never meant to represent Jesus, the individual was, which makes up the church. 

#112
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@EtrnlVw
While that might be what you want to believe, it simply isn't true. There is a church, and you would have to ignore a good chunk of the New Testament as well as the historical church that followed the events depicted in The New Testament.

The Orthodox Catholic Church is the church of Christ, flesh and all.


#113
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mopac
The Orthodox church is a farce, sorry son. You wasted your time.
#114
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@EtrnlVw
Unfortunately for you, your words carry no weight to me.

#115
croweupc
croweupc's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 57
0
0
4
croweupc's avatar
croweupc
0
0
4
-->
@Mopac
The narrative was not meant to explain you, but only to express how easy it is to believe almost anything. I did grow up in church, of course not yours, but I know how believable things become when everyone around you believes the same things and constantly reinforcing what you already think is true. Belief keeps people from learning anything new. When we already think we know the answers, we stop seeking. Progress only happens when we are open to new information. How we obtain information is important too. The church produces its own narratives to reinforce its belief system. If you buy their narrative, you will believe what they are saying.

Why do you believe their narrative?

“Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money!”  George Carlin

Topic's author
#116
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
Slippery slope. Could not the same be said about the bible? Let's solve this issue: please give me the clause in the constitution that refers to where we're a Christian nation. One reference to the Christian god will suffice.
It's not a slippery slope. Again, Christian nation back then = theocracy.


Hmmm...nothing, huh? Maybe it's in the bill of rights. Any references to any god there?
No, but what we do see are founding fathers, many who professed to be Christians in a non-Christian (Non-theocracy, non-religious State) nation.  The theocracy issue is no joke Ludo. This is why some famous founding fathers made negative statements about religion, and positive comments about the Bible. Today we have people who claim American is in danger of becoming a Christian theocracy. I've never got a straight answer however on which denomination do they think would take authority? And ironically some of these same people probably think there are literally 45,000 denominations opposing each other.





This is awkward. How about the Declaration of Independence...oh, here it is. One reference. To...'Nature's God." Why didn't they write the Christian god if they intended to create a Christian nation? They do refer to a Creator...is that specific enough to distinguish between, say, Jesus and Ra?
Because they didn't intend to create a Christian nation. This is why they acknowledged deism, and even eastern religions.

How about this Ludo. We were (are?) a non-Christian nation where the majority were (are?) Christians?

Aren't you the one who claims Americans become Christians because of Christian upbringing? Where does that fit in with your non-Christian nation theme?


These are the founding documents of the country, and none of them refer to anything Christian...it seems a strange way to create a Christian nation, doesn't it?
Yes, if that was their intention. If they actually intended on the U.S. being a Christian nation (theocracy), chances are we'd be more similar to a Muslim nation.


Topic's author
#117
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@secularmerlin
I think I explained it, but, I'll try again just in case. (I could be thinking of an explanation in a different thread.).

I am pretty sure I mentioned that the word cult has a broad definition. So, just about anything can be considered a cult. When we think of religious cults, we might think of a charismatic individual who gains a following. So yes, the word cult could technically be applied to Jesus Christ and his following.

What I believe I mentioned somewhere in this thread, is that I was using the term from strictly a Christian definition. Anything deviant from the pure Gospel would produce a religious cult. I fully acknowledge that you won't be able to relate to this definition. Which is fine. I may have mentioned that it may not have been an appropriate word for me to use since a number of members here are not Christian. I would just assume scratch the word from the post if possible.

I would however be interested on your view of the denomination allegation.
Topic's author
#118
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@croweupc
I grew up in a church that had “the truth”. If you did not follow the plan of salvation as taught in the Bible as they understood it you were not going to heaven. This argument works great on those who accept this position. Arguments are not one size fits all. The point of pointing out the many denominations is this: if the God of the Bible is the one true God, he did a terrible job at explaining exactly what he wanted us to do. It is also confusing why a god would need to use fallible humans to communicate to us what he wants. If God is powerful enough to build Universes, he should be able to communicate in a way that is not subjective to personal opinions. 
First off, the first question I would have to ask, can God communicate on an individual basis? There are many people, including myself, who knows what God wants us to do, because God spoke to us individually. An example of what I mean, a person on a loudspeaker we can say is effectively
communicating to a broader range of people than someone having to rely strictly on their voice alone. The person on the microphone's voice is enhanced enough to where people can hear them from 2 or 3 blocks away. But, he has no control as far as choosing, or limiting who he communicates with. Some people seem to think that God cannot communicate individually, or for some reason wouldn't.

As far as your church, yes, some churches and denominations have a strict view on salvation. Some think that someone cannot be saved if they don't
speak in tongues for instance. Or, they must be baptized in addition to acknowledging Christ as savior. But the majority of Christians, particularly in
America, understand that differences in doctrine does not separate believers.  John 3:16 among some other verses are catalysts for salvation for many believers because this often seems to be where the supernatural awakening takes place. (Or, the Born Again experience). And we don't really
know the dynamics of how this happens. When someone receives Christ, and they have the experience to go with it (which by the way varies tremendously), doctrine or definition of salvation is pretty meaningless since they just encountered the savior. And since it's tough to understand as
far as it's dynamics, there's more of a universal acknowledgement of salvation in the traditional sense, than, say, the tribulation timeline, eternal security, age of the earth, etc.









#119
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@croweupc
If you think God is an invisible man in the clouds with a beard, this is a testament to how badly educated even those who allegedly teach the bible can be in protestant churches.

Our religion is quite literally Truth worship. So I don't accept that you were ever anything but ignorant concerning Christian orthodoxy.

#120
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@RoderickSpode
There are many people, including myself, who knows what God wants us to do, because God spoke to us individually. An example of what I mean, a person on a loudspeaker we can say is effectively 
communicating to a broader range of people than someone having to rely strictly on their voice alone. The person on the microphone's voice is enhanced enough to where people can hear them from 2 or 3 blocks away. But, he has no control as far as choosing, or limiting who he communicates with. Some people seem to think that God cannot communicate individually, or for some reason wouldn't.
Different is one is observable and another isn't. Your analogy doesn't work when a loudspeaker can be observable whereas God cannot. All you have given here is conjecture nothing tangible like the God you believe in.