Christmas, The Contrived Sham to Hide Our True Roots... Paganism.

Those who are faithful with little will be entrusted with much.

The immaculate conception is a doctrine concerning Mary being born perfect and without sin. It is actually a doctrine that The Roman Catholic Church came up with as a solution to one of their deviations from Orthodoxy.

The deviation being that they believe that humanity inherited the guilt of the sins commited in the.garden of Eden. The Orthodox position is actually that we inherited the mess caused from it, not the guilt. 

We do not understand original sin the same way.

So no, actually neither I or the Orthodox Church accepts the doctrine of the immaculate conception. Mary was a regular woman just like anyone else, particularly pious surely. The thing that makes her stick out is her relationship to Jesus. As The Church is the body of Christ, in a way, Mary is seen as our mother. When we remember the saints during our liturgy we always make sure to mention Mary first. We certainly do not make her out to be God.

From the Nicene-Constantinople creed..

"We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins."

It is the high point and climax of our liturgy. It is an institution established by Christ himself and faithfully preserved by his apostolic church.

Most priests(more accurately they are referred to as presbyters, because technically we are a nation of priests)are married. The preference is actually for presbyters to be married. Bishops tend to be selected among monastics or presbyters who outlived their wives. That is the preference.

There have always been exceptions, but they wouldn't be the norm.

Are the nuns celibate?

Of course! A nun is a female monastic. Monastics are always celibate. Some people are called to this particular way of life. For those who are not, marriage is the recommended alternative.

In a great way, that is what praying to Mary is like in Orthodoxy. 

Again, it is really about Jesus.

Yes, Bishops have crosiers. They are usually stylized to represent the serpent staff Moses lifted in the wilderness, which in itself typified Christ being raised up on the cross.

Sometimes they are also stylized as the Greek letter tau, which resembles some crosses that Romans used for execution.

We also call it the feast of the nativity. 

More accurately, they wear crucifixes. The cross is not empty.

We call it Pascha or passover but yeah, we celebrate Easter. It is always on a Sunday. Pascha is a big deal to us, we go all out. It is easily our biggest feast day.

I don't think most so called "gnostics" or "neognostics" do either, so if I were you I wouldn't get my information from them.

Understand that their only intention is to undermine the faith and cast doubt.

Truthfully, a lot of the things we do liturgically are carry overs from Jewish worship in the temple and in the synagogues.

*sigh* read what I’ve said again. You cherry pick what I say.

When I say “hundreds of thousands” you say “hundreds”.

When I say “norm/state sponsored” you say “state sponsored”.

Stop picking the low hanging fruit and actually reply to me in context.

When you said “that’s not an argument”, it wasn’t meant to be one. 

I can reply to every single thing you say, but what’s the point if you’ll just twist my replies.

It isn’t like Christianity existed for hundreds of thousands of years before it became the norm/state sponsored.

Postdiluvian figures, are you serious? The flood is a made up story.

But that's exactly what you're doing by including her in your prayers. You're not supposed to pray to anyone but God--especially considering your statement, "Mary was a regular woman just like anyone else..." Even if you admire her relationship with Jesus, you're not supposed to idolize it (e.g. "Mary is seen as our 'mother.'") The "Virgin Mary" is a reference to the Kemetic tale of Asset and Asar. Since Asar was his own father, Asset was said to be "immaculate." She is said have to given birth to Asar without a man, and Asar was both her consort and her son, as well as the reincarnation of his father.

Baptism is an allusion to the reincarnation of Asar (a.k.a. Tammuz, Oannes, etc.) After being thrown into the water after his death, he re-emerged as Heru, also known as Oannes also known as Dagon the Fish god. When John spoke of Baptism in the Bible, he meant only to incorporate the holy spirit. Any mention of water was rhetorical.

This is another allusion to a pagan mystery known as the death of Baal. Baal was torn a part by wolves at the base of a mountain in one telling. His priests were known as Can (which would inspire Canaan and the Canaanites.) The consumption of the bread and wine is symbolic cannibalism. (Can of Baal.) It represents the death of Baal. It was never an "institution" established by Christ himself (But then again, that depends on which Bible you read.) The Eucharist claims to be a symbolic allusion to the last supper, and that's part of the perversion.

How is Easter on Sunday, if Jesus was supposed to be in the grave three days and three nights? Even if you include Friday (good Friday) it still wouldn't work out to Sunday. Easter is in veneration of the mother goddess "Ishtar" a.k.a. Inanna who was the goddess of sex and fertility. Veneration of her would start in the Spring because vegetation was associated with birth. (Her son Tammuz was also known as the God of vegetation.) Of course, she'd also demand blood sacrifices which is the reason you may notice some widespread murders are always televised at the end of April and the beginning of May. I believe the Wiccan Religion calls this, April 24/31, the "Night of Walpurgis." I think the last "sacrifice" happened last Easter in "Colombo" Sri Lanka. Comlumbia is the "American" greco-roman goddess modeled after Libertas a.k.a. Hecate (mother of witchcrafts) a.k.a. Isis, a.k.a. Ishtar, a.k.a. Inanna (one of her incarnations is also Kali Ma from Hinduism.) The "Columbine" shootings also happened around that time (April 21-31) in 1999. It's all in veneration to Ishtar.

I do not get my information from gnostics or neognostics. I get information from reading various books, encyclopedias, and yes, Internet searches. I'm not arguing this against or on behalf of any religion or denomination. I provide this information for knowledge's sake so that any who'd read or listen can have some more information on the context under which their rituals take place. Catholicism is pagan. You may assert that the schism creates a substantial difference between orthodox and roman, but it doesn't create enough of a difference to separate orthodox Catholicism from its pagan practices.

I do not qualify arguments based on the alleged intentions of their author. And I'm not trying to cast doubt on your faith. Note that I argue that Catholicism is paganism, not Christianity in its entirety. Though to be frank, most organized representations of Christian denominations sustain Luciferian customs, whether it be in a diminished or prominent capacity.

The Jewish worship does not stem from the ancient Hebrews or Israelites, but from the Cabala (Jewish mysticism/occultism.) Most of that which is considered Semitic derivation comes from none other than the Babylonian/Kemetic mysteries. There's an interesting book written by Arthur Koestler called "The Thirteenth Tribe"--for those who are fans of the anime "Ghost in the Shell," you may haven done research toward its inspirations which included "Blade Runner" and "The Ghost in the Machine," also authored by Arthur Koestler. In "The Thirteenth Tribe," Koestler provides an extensive research towards the origin of the Caucasian Jew and modern Judaism. They're rituals actual stem from the Khazar Empire, where their emperor converted them to "Judaism." I'd recommend reading it.

How can I twist your words when your words are available verbatim for everyone to see? 

Can I take it that you have no support for these claims?

We do not believe in the immaculate conception, nor do we idolize Mary.

More pseudo-gnostic horsehit.

I hope you don't take offense at me saying.that, it isn't intended to be an attack on you. Moreso the people who have gaught you this nonsense.

That is not at all what the eucharist is.

There has never been any controversy in the church about the resurrection occuring on Sunday. Even if it wasn't, it doesn't really matter because we can construct our calendar however we want to.

Most people who buy into gnostic misinformations are unaware of the origins of these lies.

You don't understand our faith at all. Point blank. If you dispute me on this, you are telling me you know better what I believe than I do. You would also be saying something about how seriously I take understanding my faith. You are also denying everything we believe and claiming we all believe something different than what we actually do.

It should be obvious that I take my faith very seriously.

Though what you claim is false, the church is certainly in its right to take captive pagan practices and put them to the obedience of Christ. If this is how you reach a particular people, why not?

You are talking nonsense. The Church left the synagogue long before Kaballa was a thing and long before the Kazars became Jewish. This isn't a modern influence. We have been practicing the same liturgy for over a thousand and a half years. The liturgy that has been the standard since then was based off an earlier liturgy that was a great deal longer.

The point is, we know where all of this stuff comes from.

then why don’t you reply to them as such.

The burden of proof should be on the person claiming something happened, not on someone claiming it didn’t, do you agree?

You argued that the flood was a made up story. You are affirming that the story of flood is made up.

You also state that it isn't like Christianity existed hundreds and thousands of years before it became the norm/state-sponsored. That is another affirmation.

Which reply are you seeking?

This is folly, and a common mistake among those whose knowledge of logic is merely novice. The burden of proof rests with any who affirms a claim, whether it proposes or negates. After all, a negation in and of itself is an affirmation. So you are responsible to the onus it creates. Any assumption that your argument is validated by failure to prove the contrary denotes an argumentum ad ignorantium (argument from ignorance.) 

You argued that the flood was a made up story. You are affirming that the story of flood is made up.

You also state that it isn't like Christianity existed hundreds and thousands of years before it became the norm/state-sponsored. That is another affirmation.

Support your claims.

A reply in which you respond to me in context for fuck sake.

Did you read the rest of what I said?

if someone said unicorns don’t exist, would you expect them to need to prove that they don’t? No.

Proving a positive is much more feasible than disproving a positive. It’s practical to falsify (prove ((a statement or theory)) to be false) positive evidence, it’s not however practical to falsify negative evidence.

You don't know our practices or beliefs. You don't get to tell us what we believe. If you refuse to be corrected, I have identified you as a gnostic heretic. Aka the ancient practice of being a know-it-all dipshit. 

The cure for your condition is humility and charity. Without that, you will continue to falsely believe you have knowledge, and you continue to walk in the dark.

You are looking at created things.

You are confused by trying to associate the way a symbol is used by one culture and context with how a symbol is used by another culture and context.

You are confused by symbols with no innate meaning. That is incredibly superstitious.

You will never come to true knowledge of The Way like this. It is folly.

We Orthodox are not Roman Catholic. We have never subscribed to the doctrine of Papal supremacy, and Rome trying to exert authority over the entire church is part of why it is a schismatic church. They are not Orthodox Catholics.

We Orthodox are not Roman Catholic. We have never subscribed to the doctrine of Papal supremacy, and Rome trying to exert authority over the entire church is part of why it is a schismatic church. They are not Orthodox Catholics.

You've already made this argument; and I've already addressed it.

You misunderstand what we do. We do not worship pagan gods.

It matters very little where the idea of swinging a censor came from. We do not honor pagan gods in our practices. We explain why we do what we do. There is no hidden agenda.

You are a typical gnostic heretic trying to undermine the faith with knowledge falsely so called.

(And for those interested look up Magisterial Privilege where the Pope must partake in child abuse, ritual blood sacrifice, and blood drinking.)

And that context is?

Yes I did. But it wasn't relevant. The only part that mattered was the folly you asserted: "the burden of proof should be on the person claiming something happened, not on someone claiming it didn’t, do you agree?" This is merely a contrivance pedaled typically by some illogical atheists to elide their onus. And it's categorically incorrect. Once again, the burden of proof rests with anyone who affirms a claim. Because proof is meant to substantiate its "Truth." But if you want me to explain this using your example, then I will of course oblige.

Yes, you would. Their premise, "p," is "Unicorns don't exist." They would be arguing its Truth. This premise is not true tautologically; it's not true a priori. In order to ascribe this premise a truth value, you must substantiate its truth. You cannot argue, p, "unicorns don't exist," therefore, q, "unicorns don't exist." And if you argue that the failure of your opponent to substantiate the contrary, i.e. not p ("Unicorns do exist") validates your premise p "Unicorns don't exist," then you'd be arguing from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) a informal logical fallacy that denotes a proposition true upon failure to prove and substantiate the contrary. 

So no, there's nothing logical about asserting that the burden of proof rests with the person claiming something happened. Stating that "something happened" and stating that "something didn't happen" are both affirmations. Both require substantiation.

It's not a matter of your convenience; it's a matter of logical consistency. And nothing you've described thus far conforms with any sound logical metric. I'll tell you the same thing I told Mopac: don't take me at my word. Feel free to verify or falsify anything I state. 

With that said, provide support to your claims, or drop/withdraw the point. 

Go back and look at the examples so you understand to be carful not to twist context for future references.

It’s about falsifiability. You can’t disprove magic exists.

Having a lack of evidence does’t prove one way or another.

Your whole belief system is an argument from ignorance.

The only reason we’re having this discussion is because you’re the first one to ask me for burden of proof. I could have easily asked you first, but I knew it would be a waste of time.

It depends on what’s convenient. If it’s the best way to get to the truth, then yeah, I’m all for it.