Total posts: 8,050
Posted in:
Moral subjectivism = Whatever aligns with my personal sense of aesthetics is moral, unless situationally inconvenient for me.
Should just call it amoralism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AddledBrain
If you believe there is ultimate reality, you believe God exists.
I'm not calling you a nihilist, I am saying that if you don't believe there is ultimate reality, that makes you a nihilist.
What I recognize as God is The Ultimate Reality, and my God by necessity exists.
Just because it doesn't make sense to you yet doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense.
What is God to you? Tell me what the ultimate reality is, and there is your conception of God.
My faith is very practical. It is the science of sciences. You don't understand my faith, why, we have yet to find common ground. You don't understand the language involved as we do. As that is the case, we have yet to argue or debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You should probably ask questions to someone you will respect the response of rather than me. I'm not interested in debating these things with.you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I asked my priest if I should go down to the gay bar and gun down all those filthy sinners.
Apparently, that would be very wrong to do.
What does that lead me to believe? You aren't getting the full picture.
Better to do what the church says, I say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
It says to kill people who work on the sabbath. That's Saturday Mr youtube education.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
there is no truth in regards to morality
This is moral nihilism.
As I said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You wouldn't know, because you have resolved to be unteachable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Stephen, you ask all the wrong questions. That is why you are confused.
What would really be better for you is if you submitted to a teacher in humility rather than try to figure everything out on your own. That teacher wouldn't be me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You say you identify as a homosexual.
In what way is it not degrading to identify with one's sexual behavior?
In what way is it not degrading to identify with one's sexual behavior?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I know the identity of my God.
That is what this is about.
My God is not a logical conclusion. My God is revelation.
That said, what else could God be other than The Ultimate Reality? Literally nothing else fits.
The god that atheists argue against is not a god I believe.
The idea of approaching theology from a perspective of reason is very alien to us. Even kind of stupid. That is what Roman Catholics and Protestants do. That is why they keep using the same arguments over and over again expecting different results. Their overreliance on so called "reason" is what created modern atheism to begin with. Our way is superior. It is also the ancient way. We are not anti-reason. We are not anti-science. Quite the contrary.
It's really simple. The Ultimate Reality is God. If you can't accept this, literally nothing else about our spirituality can make sense. It is all built around this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Nihilism is the philosophical position that there is no absolute truth.
Basically atheism.
When there is no God, I am God!
That is what moral subjectivism is. Self righteousness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I am an Orthodox Christian.
Literally the oldest most conservative religion there is. Our church is the oldest continuous international institution in human history.
What you are accusing me of is in fact what you are guilty of, though you don't know.
Literally the oldest most conservative religion there is. Our church is the oldest continuous international institution in human history.
What you are accusing me of is in fact what you are guilty of, though you don't know.
But you don't know what we believe. You think you do, but you really don't. You probably won't ever if you don't wish to be instructed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AddledBrain
Contemplate what these words mean.
"The Ultimate Reality"
If you say there is no ultimate reality, that makes you a nihilist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
As morality is meaningless to the nihilist, what the nihilist calls morality can only be arbitrary.
Moral subjectivism = I am right
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You haven't shown my claims are bunk.
There is nothing to argue against. You don't have an argument. Your "argument" comes from not knowing what you are talking about.
Of course, if you showed me a little more charity, I could talk at great length and demonstrate many logical proofs for my position. My position isn't "God exists". This is a stupid thing to debate because the people who say otherwise don't deserve to have their position entertained. Only a fool says in their heart there is no God. This is not a vain saying. As I pointed out, the God we accept is The Ultimate Reality. If you say our God doesn't exist, this is a confession of nihilism. Nihilism is a self defeating and stupid position.
The existence of God is a given. It is a testament to the confusion of the times we live in that people even debate this.
Created:
Posted in:
It's always so cute when little kids start learning about logical fallacies.
I remember back when I was 16, in my mind destroying everyone's arguments. Thinking about the things that no one ever thought through! I was the smartest person in the world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
There is nothing to address.
Maybe you'll get it when you are older.
Created:
Posted in:
why would it dishonour your bishop?
The abbot would rebaptize me. We don't practice rebaptism. I was told if I got rebaptized I'd be excommunicated.
That is all I care to talk on that subject, as it is very scandalous.
Well what is the matter with the monastery you have been lodging in for free that last month? Is the truth that you have been evicted?
I hardly was staying there for free, I was landscaping the entire time I was there. 6 days a week. I had stayed at other monasteries too before that one. Everyone works at the monastery, or it don't work.
I genuinely did not want to stay. It was overall a good experience. It really came down to honoring my bishop.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You can ask me anything, but you are not entitled to an answer.
If you look on the previous page, the last thing I posted before you resurrected this topic was that pland had changed.
Still fully intending on becoming a monk. It just has been delayed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You aren't capable of discrediting anything other than yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The dictionary itself uses my definition.
That in itself justifies my equating God with Ultimate Reality.
The dictionary is not my authority, I know what my faith teaches. However, the dictionary is supposed to be a neutral source. If you reject the neutral source, we have no common ground. Rather, you have no ground to stand on.
That in itself justifies my equating God with Ultimate Reality.
The dictionary is not my authority, I know what my faith teaches. However, the dictionary is supposed to be a neutral source. If you reject the neutral source, we have no common ground. Rather, you have no ground to stand on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AddledBrain
Science bows to God.
If there is no ultimate reality, science is meaningless. There can not be knowledge of truth if ultimate reality doesn't exist.
No, I am really quite certain there is ultimate reality. It is the surest truth there is. Nothing else is even possible.
You have performed the required experiment. Your experience is proof that there is some form of existence. If there is a reality as it appears to be(your experience), there by necessity is reality as it truly is.
Reality As It Truly Is... that is God. The Ultimate Reality. I am more certain of God's existence than anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
When you are willing to have a conversation instead of spamming the same post over and over again, I'll be more interested to talk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
If I were to identify the ultimate reality, that is, present you an image, you would mistake the image for The Ultimate Reality itself. You would confuse the created with The Uncreated.
My faith isn't blind. I can see. You on the other hand are blind, and clearly so. You've tripped and fallen into a black hole!
Prove to me that there is Truth.
It is an absurd request. If someone doesn't believe in truth, how can you present evidence to them?
The Truth is God. It has to be accepted that God is a given or else reason itself is irrational. Without God, everything becomes arbitrary. Even the self deification of the nihilist becomes meaningless. The mad posturing of a nothing who has so rebelled against truth that even after denying it can't accept he is nothing.
It is the most obvious of insanities to deny God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
The Way is God.
Abide in The Eternal Way of Truth.
Walk the path.
If you can't see the path to walk, there is still a work of faith that can be done. Purify the heart.
I point to Orthodox Christianity. Put it into practice. Everything is there.
With men, everyone is forgotten. There isn't a hair that has fallen off your head that God hasn't numbered. The One who remembers everything is God. There is no salvation outside of God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AddledBrain
If ultimate reality exists only in the minds of believers, then ultimate reality is contingent on the human mind.
If the ultimate reality is contingent on anything, it would not be the ultimate reality.
The Ultimate Reality cannot be noumenon(an object of the mind)
The Ultimate Reality is God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
You can't use logic to destroy The Truth.
You can't use emotion to destroy The Truth either.
The God I believe in is The God of Truth.
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You are right, God hasn't been revealed to you.
But you are wrong in all other regards. God certainly has been revealed to me, and in no way can I deny that.
But you are wrong in all other regards. God certainly has been revealed to me, and in no way can I deny that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@ludofl3x
I decided against joining this monastery because it occured to me that for me to join this monastery I would have to do something that would dishonor my bishop back home. In the end, I did what I believed was right to do as someone under obedience.
Plans changed.
The current situation is that I will be part of the founding of a new monastery, one with the blessing of my bishop. The abbot has a lot of experience. My bishop, as a monk himself and a lover of monasticism, wants this monastery to have a good start. I was told last night as a matter of fact that I will start my novitiate around march.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
i read a protestant who said laying on of hands leads to apostolic succession, but that doesn't imply there aren't other ways to have apostolic succession. thoughts?
"Apostolic succession is the tracing of a direct line of apostolic ordination, Orthodox doctrine, and full communion from the Apostles to the current episcopacy of the Orthodox Church. All three elements are constitutive of apostolic succession."
The laying on of hands is not what gives apostolic succession, otherwise any layman could claim to be a successor to the apostles!
The gift and seal of The Holy Spirit has historically been done through the laying on of hands and the annointing with chrism. In fact, this is how Christians first got their name. In Antioch, the pagans would mock those in the church for the sacrament of chrismation, calling them "Christians". The church in response said, "Yeah, ok then, we are Christians."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
in 1965, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople removed the mutual excommunications.Is this true or not?
This has not received church wide acceptence. In fact, the Patriarch of Constantinople hasn't really had much respect from the church at large ever since. In the playlist I posted in the OP, the author outright says the Patriarch of Constantinople is not Orthodox!
what do you say Mopac? Do you accept what the Patriarch of Constantinople as the first among equals declared and affirmed or do you reject his authority over you?
We are not papists. That isn't what first among equals means to us. All that means is that when the bishops meet, he gets the chair at the end of the table.
Besides that, I am not in the church of Constantinople. It is a completely different jurisdiction.
Roman Catholics are obviously still excommunicated, because we won't give them communion.
Believe me, all of these things the Bishop of Constantinople has been doing is incredibly controversial in the church. There are even rumors that in a few years he is planning on ending the schism beteeen Constantinople and Rome permanently. I heard from a Russian Archimandrite that he knows a lot of Greek priests who intend on moving to the Russian Church if he does.
The Patriarch of Constantinople is really not respected much these days. The entire Orthodox world is against his meddling in Ukraine, because it is not his jurisdiction, and his actions have created a great deal of confusion. I know Abbots under his own jurisdiction that oppose him.
The Patriarch of Constantinople is not the leader of The Orthodox Church. He is the bishop of maybe 3.5 million Christians. To compare, the patriarch of Georgia is bishop over around that same number, 3.5 million. The patriarch of Bulgaria is the bishop of maybe 6.5 million Christians. The patriarch of Serbia is the bishop of maybe 15 million Christians. The patriarch of Romania is the bishop of maybe 19 million Christians. The Russian Patriarch, our big elephant in the room is bishop over 90 million Christians.
The Roman Catholics would like to believe the patriarch of Constantinople is the head of our church, because if they can compromise him, they can theoretically get the rest of us to submit to the pope of Rome!
No, the Roman Catholic Church is a heretical church. They are not simply excommunicated, they are anathema. The bishop of Rome is a forerunner to the anti-Christ.
the Orthodox Church is ecumenical despite some opinions. It has been a member of the World Council of Churches - in bed with every other Christian church in the world. Now unless it is being deceptive, it is accepting and acknowledging that it is not the only true church.
Some jurisdictions do take part in the World Council of Churches, but that innitself is very controversial. There are many who call modern ecumenism the "pan-heresy", and for good reason. The more optimistic see it as a way to give witness to the true church. There is no possibilityof union with these other churches, not unless they became orthodox. From our understanding, proper ecumenism is only done in the Orthodox Church. It is certainly improper to pray and hold services with these churches, but not to talk to them.
My priest has been tasked with having dialog in a modern ecumenical context. He says it is mostly a waste of time, but the good that comes out of it is that we get reports of people suffering in other countries that we otherwise might not get. It is not a wrong thing of us to do what we can to help alleviate the sufferings of those people if we can.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I just gave you some.
"There is nothing greater than The Ultimate Reality. Nothing can ovverride it. There is nothing that can equal it. There is nothing that can contain it."
In addition, all power and authority ultimately derives from The Ultimate Reality. Where there is existence, The Ultimate Reality is there sustaining that existence. It is The Ultimate Reality that gives existence to all things.
Nothing else can fulfill these things. The only possible God is The Ultimate Reality. That is the God we believe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
The problem with this covenant theology is that you have no problem acting apart from The Church(and you know I mean the Orthodox Church), which is New Israel.
You should listen to the playlist in the OP, not the computer voice one.
You should get over your being offended, because this is a polemical work. Being defensive will only serve to get in the way of hearing what is said.
I suggest you start on lecture 2, which confirms some points you have made and bridges the gap between your understanding and ours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
The Catholic Church accepts the teachings of Augustine. As does the Orthodox Church.Calvin's teachings are Augustine's teaching. If Calvin is a heretic, then so is Augustine. And if Augustine is not a heretic but is only in error in some parts of his teaching, then this is consistently the same for Calvin. Calvin did not go beyond Augustine's teaching.
St Augustine didn't start his own church.
But besides, no church father is accepted without qualifications or considered infallible. St Augustine himself wrote retractions.
St Augustine had very little influence in the East. In fact, no one church father dominates in the east quite like how st. Augustine dominates in the west. St. John Cassian would be a healthy balance to St Augustine in the west.
I'd also like to note that when I first took it on myself to read Augustine's great volume of work, I was not orthodox. One of the first things that came as a revelation to me while reading st Augustine is that he believed in free will, and certainly didn't teach double predestination as I was taught(I hung out with a lot of Calvinists who certainly believed in double predestination and rejected free will). Rather, st Augustine's viewpoint was closer to "there is a way that is predestined to salvation and a way predestined to damnnation" rather than "people are predestined to salvation or predestined to damnnation". This is closer to what orthodoxy accepts.
Not really interested in getting into a debate on Augustine, I had not read him in years. But what is important to note is that I do know what the church teaches, and St Augustine is not the ultimate authority.
But the Roman Catholics who did elevate st Augustine to a very high authority during the middle ages even then never accepted these doctrinal innovations of Calvin. What does that say? It is not unlikely that Calvin misinterpreted st Augustine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
@n8nrgmi
I take the view that apostolic succession is superstitious.It is distinct from the apostolic teaching and records.The church if it maintains the apostolic teaching will ensure it is safeguarded. Yet there is no safeguard simply by laying hands on someone.What is important is the apostolic teaching which is handed down in the NT. Although there is benefit in the laying on of hands- it is not in the safeguard of the doctrine.
"Apostolic succession is the tracing of a direct line of apostolic ordination, Orthodox doctrine, and full communion from the Apostles to the current episcopacy of the Orthodox Church. All three elements are constitutive of apostolic succession."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You are simply being incredulous.
But God has been revealed to us. I do not know the inner thoughts of my Father, but I see what He does. I hear what He says. For me to know Him would be to know everything. I can only know what He reveals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
It is sound and clear reasoning. Reasoning that is indisputable to all but the most deluded.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I just gave you several. Nothing else is even worthy of being called God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
All of these things follow from knowing what God is.
Namely, The Ultimate Reality.
Because The Ultimate Reality fulfills all these descriptions.
There is nothing greater than The Ultimate Reality. Nothing can ovverride it. There is nothing that can equal it. There is nothing that can contain it. Literally nothing else can be God.
And sure enough, this is the God we have always believed.
The God of Truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
You should clarify what you mean by the protestants using similar arguments against the atheist.
It is the scholastic approach. As exemplified in figures such as Thomas Aquinus.
The playlist in the OP would be worth listening to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
The schism happened because the Latin church fell into heresy.
Their push for papal supremacy kind of made reconciliation impossible. It made resolving anything else infeasible.
We really tried, but their actions towards us during the crusades really fudged all that up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Unity for unity zake is not Christianity. Our unity is in faith. If we don't share the faith, there can be no unity. Such a unity is false.
According to the ecumenical councils, when Rome altered the creed without church consensus, it was an act of schism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
We do not teach that priests don't fall in to sin.
If you want to know how the currents that lead Rome into falling away naturally lead to protestantism, and then naturally lead to the modern atheistic worldview, I direct you to The Orthodox Survival Course playlist in the OP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
The Roman Catholic Church itself does not accept Calvin's doctrines.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ImminentDownfall
We would say that to accept what happens is to accept God's will.
Not really a God of the gaps, as God doesn't simply fill the gaps but is "everywhere present and fills all things".
Explaining the process of how something is done does not in anyway push God out to "the gaps".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BearMan
God possesses omnipotence.
I do not dispute the definition.
I dispute the interpretation you have of the definition that equates omnipotence with the ability to do what is impossible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BearMan
You haven't proven anything other than your own arrogance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BearMan
We don't understand omnipotence as you do.
Therefore, you aren't addressing what we believe.
End of debate.
Created:
Posted in:
It is stupid to argue semantics. What matters is what we actually believe, not how you can twist and lawyer around language so you can deceptively paint us as believing something we don't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BearMan
I don't dispute the definition.
This is a Latin word by the way.
Omni- meaning All.
Potens- meaning power.
All power comes from God.
Nobody believes that God makes square circles. That isn't what omnipotence means.
Created: