Total posts: 3,520
-->
@Theweakeredge
Of course I agree, pedophilia and rape are always wrong, and by saying I don't hold to objective morality doesn't mean that I'm saying there are exceptions to the rule. All it means is that I don't think there is an objective grounding we can base it off that clearly and philosophically connects to morality. I also don't disagree that people seem to be more and less convinced of untrue things, but I don't think that doesn't mean we can't find the correct thing and fight for it.
I think you are now being semantical. To say there are no exceptions means ipso facto it is absolute. And the only reason it can be absolute is because it is already implicitly based in an objective grounding. Otherwise it must be subjective by definition. Otherwise, there simply is no justification for making such an absolute statement. When you assert there is no objective grounding to base this view - is just a reflection of the fact that are an atheist and do not believe in a common law situation. And yes that is consistent with your beliefs as an atheist - but not in morality and with your conscious.
Correct means right - it means truth exists. We are not talking about preferences or opinion or even about being consistent with your own thinking - we are talking about real right and real wrong - correct. As society trends towards fluidity - science is thrown out the window and replaced with feelings and emotions. What science once told us - we now dispute - this is in one sense the inevitable result of utilising evolution as part of the philosophical method. We are constantly changing. This is the fluidity. Evolution on steroids.
If you don't believe me - take a look at the US election results. 50% voted for Biden and thinks he is perfect. The other 50% voted for Trump and believe he has been cheated.
Fake news is rampant. And in the USA - either half of the electorate is gullible towards the Democrats or 50% is gullible towards Trump. Truth has been lost somewhere.
I am one who is always going to fight for the truth- this is why I am a Christian. I believe in the truth and fighting for it.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
As you probably know, I don't really hold to any standard of objective morality, and I think then it goes there. Generally, that's true in a democracy, that the majority decides what's right and what's wrong. While I could explain my stance on abortion and why I don't se it as unethical, I think that's a little besides the point for here. I do agree that often we should consider and ask what is the ethical thing, and not necessarily what the legal thing.Essentially what I'm saying is that while definitionally its not murder, in my own head cannon for it, something is murder if it's unjustified validly or ethically. Therefore for me the question of innocence is who has not committed an unjust thing. An unjust thing being an action that is unjust validly and/or ethically. If any of that makes any sense, its how I look at the question anyways.
I did not know for sure - although I had picked it up in some of what you were saying. I do hold to an objective morality. I think pedophilia is WRONG ABSOLUTELY and ALWAYS. There are no exceptions to it. I think rape is absolutely wrong ALWAYS and that there is no exception to this. I disagree with abortion - but accept that there are some justified exceptions to it. I disagree with euthanasia but would concede that there may be exceptions to.
I hold to an open doors immigration policy. Yet I am also anti-socialist. I am a libertarian - and even progressive by nature - yet I disagree the conception of big government.
Murder is unlawful killing. Putting a qualification that provides justification ethically - requires more than just a culturally or generational basis. Hence, I think that all societies require an underlying culture that determines equality for the rest. I don't think this underlying culture should be secular thinking or atheism.
The problem about talking about unjustly valid or ethical is that we live in a time of philosophical flux. Everything is relative. Or fluid. this means that nothing can be unjustly invalid or valid. We seem to be going into a time where the strongest will survive. Truth will be determined by the strong. Or whoever has the best media influence.
Fake news already abounds - truth has been thrown out the window and replaced with the latest 20 secs of news.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Yes, yes they do. They live in a democracy after all.should the government ever have the power to kill innocent people? No.Also, really, that's your example, abortion. If you want to use your own example, then as you admit, abortion isn't murder.How about this - you can call abortion murder, and I can call what those sects want murder.Sound fair?
Hi Theweakeredge,
You make a good point and it is one I have grappled with in the past.
I agree that the government should never have the power to kill unlawfully. The question of innocence is more complex.
I think that abortion is not properly in my view murder when it is carried out legislation made under a properly constituted government.
And nor would I consider the death penalty murder for any breach under any law if it was carried out under properly constituted government.
If for instance the government decided that all Christians who refused to bow the knee to Caesar and deny the Christ should be put to death, then this would not be murder if the legislation was made under a properly constituted government.
When Caesar threw the Christians to the lions for being Christians, this was not murder under their law. I think it was unethical and immoral and unjustified personally. But it was not murder.
I do think the government had the right to put to death people who break its laws if is so desired to do so. The bigger question is who determines the government and the laws it makes?
In a democracy where the majority determines the morality of the society - then it is the people who make those decisions.
In a dictatorship it is the dictator who makes that call.
In an oligarchy - then it is that group of elites that make that call.
In a theocracy it is the God of that theocracy that makes that rule.
Or is there a law - a common law of right and wrong that everyone holds too? A conscious. ???
I disagree with murder. I also disagree with abortion. And I think the killing of humans at any stage is wrong unless there is a lawful reason. Legislation provides that lawful reason to make abortion not murder. It does not mean that it is not unethical or wrong or that it is not killing.
And the same applies to homosexuality -
The question of innocence becomes vague. What is innocence? Innocence from what - breaking the law. Or breaking morality. Or what?
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Again, this thread was supposed to be on moral authority, not necessarily that god even commanded people to kill gay people.I'm not quite sure that theists see God, quite the same way they see human or natural law moral authorities.Though I'm not 'really sure they see God as a moral authority either, since it seems a bit vague to me.
Certainly there is some truth in that comment. Christians like any other worldview have people within its ranks that are different to others.
Some see God as the determiner of moral truth and others don't.
Created:
-->
@Conway
Just in case no one has taken the time to tell you this...That's an odd question.Christians don't believe in "gay".They don't care.
I think that is presumptious on so many levels - and in particular to many gays who are Christian themselves.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Then you should repent of saying things like "There will be homosexual people in heaven.", because a repentent sodomite is not a homosexual."It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you."If we should mourn for someone who sleeps with his own mother as someone who is to be taken away from us, that is, to be denied the kingdom, it is certainly the same with sodomites."...if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.....put away from among yourselves that wicked person."The so called "progressive Christians" are liars, not only to those who they encourage in their sin by calling such behavior no sin, but even liars about their Christianity. They are certainly not Christian who teach these things.
There are many believers who are not in an unrepentant situation even though they are sinning. This is what is known as sins committed in ignorance. They are sins and will be dealt with accordingly. Yet, to sin in ignorance is distinguished from sins which are intentional.
Many people come to Jesus - pledging loyalty to him, yet are unaware that their conduct or their views on things are sinful. Idolatry is one. Yet the Spirit of God will convict them of their sin and so transform them. There is not one human living currently who is not a sinner and who does not have unconfessed sin in their life. All of us sin - often unintentionally - and it is difficult to repent of a sin, if we do not believe that it is a sin. For instance, it is my view that the bible teaches that praying to Mary or to any of the Saints is a sin - a sin of idolatry. Yet, many catholics and orthodox do not see it as sinful because of the things and traditions they have been taught. And moreover they are so entrenched in this idolatry that they refuse to see it as a sin. In my view this is sin - yet it is sin in ignorance.
If a homosexual comes to Jesus - knowing that homosexuality is sinful and refuses to repent of it - that is quite different from someone who does not know that it is sinful and believes that there is much fake and false information put out about it. It is the Holy Spirit who convicts us of our sin. IT is he who is transforming each one of us to be more like the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.
I know that there is not one perfect person, save Jesus, among us. Yet, I am convinced that what God has started he will complete.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
So lets make it clear then.An unrepentent and practicing homosexual is an idolater, and has no place in the Kingdom of God.
An unrepentant sinner of any description has no place in the kingdom of God.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You obviously weren't paying attention, there are entire sects of Christians who think that homosexuals should be murdered by the government.
Christians like any other group in society are able to lobby the government to seek it to go in a particular direction. Progressives do not have a monopoly on making laws and providing morals.
If Christians believe that homosexuality ought to be an offence against the State, then they certainly have a right to lobby for it. Yet, in a democracy, they still need to obtain a majority to support this position - at least by representation in parliament. At least going through the state legislature is a legal and ethical way of bringing about change.
If the Government agrees to the change in law, it would not be murder of homosexuals. It would need to be lawful and sanctioned by the state- I don't think it is too disimilar to the state murdering babies every year in abortion. Now that is real murder. Where the innocent and vulnerable persons in society have no rights - no say and are treated like subhumans. Gee many people even refuse to call them human.
If gays wants my support - then they ought to put their hand up and support the vulnerable. I would more sympathetic to them if they showed some compassion to the real victims in our society.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
"...no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.Be not ye therefore partakers with them.For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:(For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret."
Absolutely, all of these things are the fruits of an unloyal heart towards God. Yet each person who comes to God is not yet perfect. The Spirit of God works in and changes each person to become more like Jesus. This is the process of sanctification.
Created:
-->
@Juice
So if I'm gay and am atheist (so cannot ask God for forgiveness), God will cast me into a pit of fire for eternity for my sin. Is this correct.
If you're an atheist and don't believe in God, the I assume you don't believe in Heaven or Hell either. It would be pointless for me to respond to you.
God NEVER sentences someone for Hell just because they are homosexual. There will billions of heterosexuals in Hell. For God it is about treason. Are you loyal to him or not.
This has always been the issue. If you don't want to be loyal to him, you will need to examine the implications of such treason. That at the end of the day is a matter for you.
Created:
-->
@Juice
If I were an Islam, you'd be six feet deep in soil.If I were a Christian, you'd not enter heaven and burn for eternity.
I can't speak for the Muslim. But that is an inaccurate assessment of the Christian position.
True, there are many homophobic Christians, indeed there are many homophobic people everywhere - from Muslims, atheists, and even some gays are homophobic. It is part of human nature to be fearful of things that they do not understand.
The conservative Christian position is that homosexuality is sinful. The progressive Christian position is that homosexuality is not even mentioned in the Bible in a express manner. They would indicate that homosexuality and orientation is not sinful.
My position is that homosexuality is sinful. Yet it is not the unforgiveable sin. There will be homosexual people in heaven and there will be homosexuals in Hell.
I do not think that the GOD of the Bible would ever ask an individual to kill someone just for the sake of them being homosexual. And given that I hold to the Bible as the voice of God, it never in any place tells individuals to go out and kill homosexuals. It does indicated in the OT that in the theocratic nation of Israel that homosexuality is a sin worthy of death. Yet even in this situation - death was the maximum penalty - and it was a matter for the STATE to determine how this was going to prove and to implement. It also indicated that God's mind sees homosexuality as sin.
But God would not condone individuals assaulting, hurting, slandering, defaming, or killing homosexuals. Assault is sin. Defamation is sinful. Murder is sinful. Slander is sinful.
The NT position changes things somewhat in the church. The church is not a state. It does not have the power to kill people physically. Individual Christians NEVER have had the power to kill or take the law into their own hands. The Church of course has the power to excommunicate. And this is the strength of its power - hence it ought to stop people from coming to the table - when they are living in sin. In fact it is its obligation to do so. Yet, even the churches cannot do that without proper evidence to support its actions. It also has the power to hand the sinner over to Satan. This means - relieve that person of their membership and request that they do not come back until they have repented of their sins. At which time - they can be received again into the membership. This is covenantal death.
And at the end of the day, if the church or the state or the family exercise such authority without legitimacy they will be judged by God.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
“If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst." ( Deuteronomy 22:23-24).
Hi Brother DTs,
thanks for bringing this verse to our attention. It proves my case for me. Read the emboldened words please. Do you notice where they shall be brought? The gates of the city.
Do you know what the gates of the city were used for? The gates were the primary meeting places of the elders in the city. It was the place where not only business transactions took place, but where the elders and the judges of the city made their investigations and heard evidence of alleged offences.
In the verse above - it says that they were to bring to then both out before the judges for a hearing. This is what it is saying. And the situation is - if they were found guilty they would be sentenced by stoning. The individuals did not take the law into their own hands. But were brought before the elders of the city for hearing. Then the elders after the judgement would allow the sentence to be carried out. IT was a STATE sanctioned LAWFUL judgment. IT was not individual people taking the law into their own hands.
But hey - I suppose I am telling you how to suck eggs again. Cheers.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Look you have had you replies pages ago. No one here would take a blind bit of notice what the bible says when I came to you or your sexuality NO ONE!They just can't bring themselves to admit the Old Testament is barbaric nature. They want it both ways all the time. It is as you say " ignoring the fact that Jesus says contradicting things about the old laws. "Jesus makes it plain on many occasions what his stance is on the mosaic law. But these Christians will rewrite and reinterpret the hole bible if that what it takes to make god and the Scriptures come up smelling of roses every time.
No one was cherry picking. We simply applied the texts like they are meant to be applied. Sorry it does not suit you.
The OT does say that homosexuality is sinful. Yes, in the OT it even says that this covenantal sin requires covenantal death. Yet as any student of Hebrew will tell you this is talking about the maximum penalty. The OT is not barbaric in nature. It just isn't. And you have not even come close to proving otherwise.
I think all OT laws are relevant except where the Cross of Jesus has fulfilled it eternally. And this does not make it irrelevant - it glorifies it - completes it - makes it real. The OT law like NT law is a reflection of the character of God. The fact that sinners find it repulsive is because they find God repulsive and his character repulsive. If on the other hand you decided that you did not find it repulsive and you did not find God's character repulsive - you would actually prove it wrong. That is the irony.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It is also misguided to try and change the church. Rather, it is the church that should be changing us. Doctrinally, we don't need a reformation. The only reformation that is really necessary is reformation of one's own heart.
Which church are you talking about? The one in Constantinople or the one in Moscow? OR yours?
They all seem to be inconsistent with each other at the moment. Certainly - one of them needs to be reformed and probably at least two of them.
In any event, even if I took the church to be infallible, this does not mean that its teaching could not err. We have certainly in church history seen this happen before and undoubtedly will see it happen again.
It is true that our hearts need to be reformed. Yet, the church is not perfect. It still requires sanctification.
And while it is true that when the church holds its doctrines clear - that it will by the Spirit of God reform us and our hearts, it is incorrect to say the church is perfect.
We still live in the now and the not yet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Mopac,
I sincerely thank you for providing these links. For the record, I have no idea who this Jones is. I have never heard of him. I have never read any of his writings.
Again, let me repeat. I am not judging the OC. I consider it a real church. It has many great teachings and I respect it - despite its many (from my tradition) errors.
I don't wish or desire for the OC to compromise its views. I don't desire that you do either or do I desire that you join the protestant or reformed traditions. I have never said that and I would not ask you to do that.
Yet, I do ask you to pause and consider the harm that you do by rejecting those of other traditions which do seek to honor Christ as God in his death resurrection and ascension.
It is difficult for your church to accept that we are sincere and do not wish to do harm to the church, its scriptures, or teachings. Yet it a fact.
We actually fight more on the same side than against each other. I have observed your criticisms of others on this forum and for the most part I am in agreement with you and incidentally as most other Christians are.
True, we do not agree on many matters of faith. But in my respectful position, that is a matter for God to judge, not you, nor your church. I also would add that despite the fact that we disagree on many matters of faith - that we actually agree on far more.
I have enjoyed our discussions - but find it hard to keep up to date with every one at the same time. I will engage with your articles in due course. I beg you to be patient while I do.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Testimony is reliable. In fact 99% of all criminal law cases are decided by testimony.
Of course witnesses get things wrong - that is human. But it is the story we know is still correct. Think of the titanic sinking. Did it sink? Yes.
But the eyewitnesses were in two camps. One lot said it broke into two before it sank. The other camp said it did not. Who was right? Well the group that said it broke into two.
Were the ones who said it did not wrong? Well yes - but their eye witness testimony was correct. From their perspective it remained in one piece.
Do we just say well - there was no consistent eye-witness testimony - it did not happen.
Well I suppose we could - but that would be dumb. This is a little like "how many angels were at the grave when Jesus rose from the dead"? One or two or more.
Testimony is reliable. Your suggestion otherwise is STUPID.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Is it a strawman? please show me how. that would be nice.
What are your arguments? A gene by a study that you cannot produce anything but an extract. a book you want me to read - but which I have to purchase.
They are not arguments.
Waiting.
Created:
-->
@Username
So what does finding someone else attractive mean? And why is it relevant?Like an natural feeling of sexual urge brought on by a person. It's relevant because people try to say that the sort of immediate sexual urge that homosexuals have when they see men that have traits that are attractive to them is somehow all made up or something they can just not feel automatically. My intuition is that that's not very disputed by the science; you can't just not find someone hot. I'm not educated on this topic, but it'd be pretty damn weird that the human species populated if everyone had to choose to be attracted to someone. Why have sex at all then?Brains seem to give us lots of natural inclinations that are independent of our rational process. It seems like sexuality is just another one of those inclinations.
Hi armoredcat, thanks for your comments.
How does a sexual urge brought on look? To me that smacks of someone who cannot control their urges. Yes, when I see someone who I find very sexual, I can think hmm. Yet, that is not really attraction. It is lust and it is actually controlled. I simply tell myself - that is an unreasonable urge to feel and then it is gone. I think rationally of the implications of entertaining such an urge. And make a decision. A choice. I have met men and females whom I can think about very quickly, but it is always a choice. And a choice to stay thinking that way or to think of something else. To say we have no choice is to reduce or remove our freewill. The science despite your intuition is not in agreement on this point. There has been no study that says that homosexuality is genetic. Not one which has any substantial credibility. And one reason why it is often discredited by gay people is that - once we find a gay gene - then it will be a question of whether we turn it off or not.
People do choose to be attracted to each other. I find your observation irrational. Surely you think "consent" is relevant or do you think it is only relevant when it comes to sex. Sex without consent is rape. Attraction is very close to sex. Not quite the same. Yet, if I don't want you to be attracted to me - yet you remain so - without your control - or choice - then you will become a stalker. You see people can choose how to respond to their attractions or not. I personally do CHOOSE whom I am attracted to or not. If others are not able to control themselves - that is a real problem. It simply means that our attraction is up to smells or to the time of the month or something else I am not in control of. The very next step is that sex - is like it is with the animals - non-consensual and rape is ok.
Now I know you don't agree with that point and probably find that extension of the logic too far - but you need to be able to draw a line in the sand and say why it is too far and why somewhere else is ok. That is your burden of proof.
I stand on the line - that it is our choice whom we are attracted too. And whom we are not attracted too. I readily concede we don't always want to accept this - we like it mostly when others like us - and we don't want to say no. But it is still our choice. Our decision.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I've already proven how it's unreliable, especially without other arguments backing them up, and that literally told you about the gene that likely makes me attracted to males and females. You have not actually proven anything, nor made any compelling counter-arguments, my age here isn't relevant nor is it something I care to share with you in particular. Of course, you could always just look at my profile, but I suppose that must be hard to do from your glass castle.
Sorry. you have not proven much at all. Your study "told me" hearsay evidence - about a gene. It is hearsay - because you have simply linked me to an abstract that says something but provides no proof for it. It might convince you, but that would not surprise me. I have made a counter argument. Do you even know what a counter argument is?
The very fact that I indicated that my own direct evidence and testimony is that I choose whom I am attracted too - plus the fact that I choose whom I am not attracted too is a counter argument. In fact it goes right to the heart of your argument. It says you are incorrect.
Then you throw at me a book - which identifies that in nature - in the animal kingdom - homosexuality occurs naturally. Your argument seems to be that since it occurs naturally in the animal kingdom that it is going to naturally occur within humanity and as such it is implicitly ok and normal. I counter this with the argument that such an argument "proves too much". I suppose you are familiar with this type of false argument. The naturally occurring argument proves far too much and therefore is a false argument. It implies that everything that occurs within the animal kingdom is ok and normal. Yet we know that is not true - which is why I referred to pedophilia in the animal kingdom, and incest and murder and cannibalism - all occurring within the animal kingdom. It is incorrect to link what the animal kingdom does with what is ok and normal in the human kingdom. They are quite distinct.
Your age is relevant only in the sense that your ideas do not seem to have a life experience about them. You throw out cute little notions but actually provide nothing with substance.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
This is untrue, there are lots of things you don't control in your body, most of your consciousness isn't actually controlled by you. Why you want or are compelled by things aren't controlled by you, the rate that your heart beats isn't controlled by you, the expansion rate of your lungs isn't controlled by you, when you get random erections, those aren't controlled by you. There are so many things you have zero control over. And telling yourself the lie that you do is nothing but unreasonableness and stubborn want for a place where scientific literature didn't surround us.
Ok. It is true that there are many things which we cannot control. I accept that point. But to extend that to whom we are attracted goes far beyond common sense.
I know that I choose whom I am attracted too. I know whom I choose not to be attracted too. This is true. Repeating it does not make it true.
But your studies have not shown otherwise. You have produced no evidence to support that it is not choice.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
That is a big call. You have not actually produced any evidence.
You gave a study which proves nothing.
You provided a book which one has to buy.
Neither prove homosexuality as occurring naturally can be applied to humanity. Unless everything else can be applied as well
I said - I choose whom I am attracted too. I have said it is my experience. This is direct evidence. And it clearly refutes your position.
It is not me being unreasonable.
Created:
-->
@Username
So what does finding someone else attractive mean? And why is it relevant?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
(Also you're arguing from personal incredulity, which isn't valid)
False.
I was arguing from eyewitness testimony. This is called direct evidence. IT is not anecdotal evidence. It is not personal incredulity. It is real evidence.
I choose whom I am attracted too. This is true. And I have no reason to lie about it.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
No its not - it's really not - pedophilia is a psychological condition like depression or psychopathy and we ought to prevent people with it from acting on their desires. You do not choose to not be attracted to children, you passively aren't.If you aren't convinced by that study, then I should ask that you give this book a read documenting how naturally occurring homosexuality is and how it is biologically determined factor in populations in order to reduce overpopulation and such
I find it difficult to believe that you don't choose your own path. I reckon you think it is your own body. But if you can't choose who you are attracted too - then it really is not your body.
I take the view that pedophilia is more than a psychological condition - it is a crime and it is wrong. It is also a choice. And the only way we can stop people from doing it is to make them aware that they are responsible for their own actions and choices and decisions. People can be pedophiles and never act on their desires. People do choose to be attracted to children.
Homosexuality occurs naturally? Like in animals. Animals who also naturally have incest. Animals who naturally kill each other. Animals who naturally eat each other. Animals who eat their own children. Animals who commit genocide. Saying something occurs naturally is not an argument for it. Animals are different from humans. I did not read the book. I am not going to spend money on something which is obviously flawed logically and philosophically. I did read the abstract of the book.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You are biologically wrong - you use nothing but an anecdotal example to prove your pointYou do not choose who you are attracted to - if you can - I have no clue how to do that. I choose to pursue relationships with others, but even when I am dating someone I still feel attraction for others, maybe not romantic attraction, but I don't choose to feel attraction for anyone. You really don't know what you're talking about here.
Hi theweakeredge,
I do choose whom I am attracted too. I really am. But what is attraction?
Is it that I find other people desirable or nice? I can look at two females and find them both attractive to look at. But the attraction that we are talking about is more than just observing them both to be desirable. But say I do find myself attracted to one of them? What does that even mean? There have been people over the years that I have enjoyed company with - and spent significant time with. But I don't fantasize about them. That is clearly a choice.
Your study was unhelpful. It provided no serious arguments. It was just an abstract understandably, but not at all helpful.
Why is it difficult for you to choose to feel attraction? It is a choice. How old are you?
I choose whom I love. I choose whom I fantasize about. I choose whom I do not want to be attracted to. This is not anecdotal. This is direct testimony. This is direct evidence.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
What? No, all being homosexual is, is having a sexual attraction to males whenever you are one yourself. You can be gay and never have sex. I do not choose to be attracted to guys, I just am.
Without getting into choice and biological arguments. I find that hard to understand and to believe.
I choose I am attracted too. I am married. I am attracted to my spouse. I am not attracted to other members of the same sex or of the opposite sex. I choose not to be attracted to others. This is my choice. TO be attracted or NOT to be attracted.
In the past I have chosen to be attracted to lots of members of the opposite sex and also to lots of members of the same sex. This has always been my choice. And when I have engaged in such relationships it was always my choice.
I choose my path - and this includes who I am attracted too. I do not think attraction is a passive matter - but an active matter. It must be - otherwise - we could end up being attracted to anyone - and never have the reciprocal attraction back to us. It is true that certain people have certain characteristics which we might find attractive - but at the end of the day it is still our choice whom we are attracted too. And it is certainly our choice whom we choose not be attracted too. I choose for instance not to be attracted to children. This is an active choice. And if a child was attracted to me - I would counsel them choose otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I apologize for breaking your paragraph up - but it had many points and it makes sense that I address them as they arise.
More accurately, we ask for the saints to pray for us. We do honor them as servants of the lord. The veneration we have towards them is in no way apart from the Christ that lives in them. You say you are educated in our way, you even claim to have been taught by those among us. Well, we are educated by the saints. The historical doctors of the church. You read a few excerpts from a handful of western saints, then get everything else from the reformers and those who followed after them.
The saints are in heaven. What good are their prayers now? Where in the Bible does it say that the Saints in heaven pray for us? Nowhere. Surely the saints in heaven know what GOD is doing here on earth. You speak as though they are simply translated to Heaven but have no knowledge of God's plans for earth. You have no idea who I have read. You attribute to the Saints omniscience. How can any one saint hear more than one prayer at a time? Please answer that question. I only became aware of the reformed faith later in my life. I did not grow up in it at all. You speak about which you do not know.
Every single one of the church fathers believed in the apostolic succession of the bishops. So well known and obvious was this fact that it was hardly worth mentioning. It was a given. If you deny apostolic succession, you are in direct contradiction to what the church has taught since the start. What was one of the things apostoloc succession was supposed to help distinguish? The real church from the heretics. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. What does apostolic refer to here? It is a mark of the church, an unbroken continuity from the apostles to this day through the bishops.
This is not true. If it were believed by all of the early fathers, there would be no dispute about the papacy of Rome. It is the inevitable conclusion of such teaching. The Apostolic teaching is in the NT. That is where truth from error is discerned even as the 4th ecumenical council decided. It is not by men - but by the inspired words of God through the teaching of the apostles. This is the mark of the church. Not apostolic succession. You still did not provide any evidence from the Bible nor did you respond to my question about the methodology of choosing successors. Successorship cannot help decide anything but who is going to lead. It cannot by its very nature determine error from right. Yet the Scriptures do this - the true teaching of the apostolic function.
John Calvin was an innovator. "hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." Is what the scriptures say. The Church has that Holy Tradition, and keeps it. Passes it down. Calvin created his own tradition, and that is what you follow. You have made the choice to trust this man over all the church fathers and the millenia of Christendom that came before. Why though?
You just demonstrate you have not read Calvin. He was not opposed to true biblical traditions of the church. He was not an innovator - clearly teaching against such things. Calvin followed the tradition of the NT and the early church fathers. If you have read his works, you would see this. But you simply follow blindly, tradition and not truth.
Know this, Calvin will never be accepted by us. He was an iconoclast. And consistwnt with his iconoclasm is an ecclesiology that if accepted would destroy the church. The very church which Christ entrusted to his disciples. The disciples who entrusted the church to the bishops. The bishops who have kept the church intact despite constant persecution from pagans, heretics, invasion, genocide, and all manner of evil.
Why would I care if Calvin is accepted by your congregation? He is dead and he is in heaven. His iconclastic position is biblical and you have not refuted it - except to say it is against the teaching of the Orthodox church - a congregation which has been excommunicated from the church because it refused to follow the words of Scripture.
That is how we can discern that your church is being utilized by anti-Christ to make war against the faith. If you were truly Christian, you would join with us, the very church of Christ. Instead, you prefer schism. Then you judge us for doing what the church has always done! We will not compromise with heretics, for to do so is not loving. We cannot be equally yoked with unbelievers. Least of all iconoclasts.
Your church actually takes a position different to your own. I by the way am not a iconclastic. I would not destroy such items - Calvin lived in different times to us. He had different battles to fight. I find it ironic that an excommunicated congregation such as yours - and one who is quite content to be in communion with other congregations who unite with the Catholic church and even the reformed churches - takes such a hard line - and yet does not have the courage of your convictions to excommunicate Constantinople. It is utter hypocrisy.
Can you even call Mary theotokos? Or do you impiously refer to her as Christotokos as Nestorius did? Well know this, the ecumenical councils declare anathema to those who cannot call Mary the theotokos. Just as they declare anathema against the iconoclasts. Just as they declare anathema who hold the impious opinion that it is idolatry to venerate the saints, and ask for their prayers. Just as it is anathema to act in schism from the church. How no church is properly so without a bishop! How a church cannot be a church without an altar! Without the relics of a saint!
I told you I had no issue with theotokus - the bearer of the Incarnate God. The term Christotokos is also true. Both terms are not mutually exclusive. Jesus Christ is both God and human. And he was and remains the Christ. Do you deny this? You try and belittle this - but that is because your heart is not the right place. Altars belong to the OT. Christ destroyed the human altar preferring instead to be the High Priest of Heaven. You belittle his role everytime you crucify Christ over and over again - despite the Word of God clearly saying he died once and for all.
Rather, you would do things apart from us. And why is this? Because you are against us. And who are we? Not the church that was founded a hundred years ago or even five hundred years. Ours is the ancient church, the mother church. The very church that all can trace their deviancy from. And rejecting the heretical papalists, you did not return to the church from which she deviated. Rather, you started your own church in opposition to us! And surely as Christ's body is not divided, you are against us. Yet you would desire false unity with us. You in your arrogance would desire to reform our church. You want to destroy us. Why? To legitimize yourselves, and justify your heresy.
No, we just wait for your repentance. Our hearts are already forgiving towards you - indeed we are the ones who are able to call your brothers despite your ungodly and unbiblical teachings. It is you who are schismatic and who prefer to remain that way. I never started another church. Every congregation that is legitimate begins with Christ. Covenantally there must be two or three witnesses. If no legitimate church is there to be a witness - or if a legitimate church is exploiting or abusing the authority Christ has given her, then the two witnesses may be a legitimate State and legitimate family.
In the part of the Reformed churches, the legitimate church of Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox churches were both exploiting and abusing the power God gave them - they were both acting out of accord with the Christian doctrines handed down to them, They were both usurping the authority of the Scriptures - so in accord with the Scriptures - and the commencement of any institution - the Legitimate State and legitimate families within those states were in accord able as two out of three witnesses biblically permitted to commence a new institution or congregation of the church.
God forbid it should ever happen. If you wish to be one body with us, then come with humility as everyone has. Become orthodox. Be taught by us, not our enemies. There is no other path to unity. The church that has taught the same throughout the ages soundly rejects union with heretics. We do not share the same faith.
You cut of your nose to spite your face. I just thank God that not all Orthodox are as schismatic as you. With respect a little bit of humility would go a long way.
Created:
-->
@YeshuaBought
God loves you, whether you love Him, or not. God loves you so much, Hee was crucified, for you, and rose, from the dead. YOU, are precious.
Thank you YeshuaBought, but it is Totally non-sequitur.
Can you explain why you have written this for me?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
just curious. supposedly God commanded you to, so.
I would take the view that law abiding individual Jews would not take the law into their hands - so no they would not execute homosexuals.
The OT law clearly places homosexuality into a category of sins that carry the maximum penalty of covenant death. Along with a multitude of others. All covenantal sins required a proper trial with evidence - with two or three witnesses. Once the judge or judges had made their rulings and judgment, then if found guilt and if the maximum penalty was handed down - it was done in accordance with the law of the land. It was not up to the individual - but the state which lawfully carried out the execution of death penalties.
Hence, like most societies which have a good legal system, it was not the individual.
Now of course - the difference between their system and ours is that it was also known as a fused system. It did not separate the law into civil and criminal offences. It has a strong sense of victim justice. Not that the victim had the right to take the law into their own hands - but that they had the right - to see justice is done. And the courts would ensure theoretically that this would take place.
Were there individuals who took the law into their own hands? Of course - just like there are in any system. Yet they were condemned by the system - just like ours does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Calvin rejected apostolic succession because it makes him a schismatic and a heretic.The apostles certainly appointed bishops, and the bishops who followed them certainly considered themselves successors ro the apostles. The church fathers certainly took this apostolic succession as an outward sign to distinguish the true church from the heresies that popped up in opposition to The Church.It was Saint Athanasius who you claimed to honor that said "God became man so that man could become God."But such a statement would be an enigma to someone who doesn't understand salvation in the same manner that the historical church does.It is written in the 7th ecumenical council, "We salute the voices of the Lord and of His Apostles through which we have been taught to honor in the first place her who is properly and truly the Mother of God and exalted above all the heavenly Powers; also the holy and angelic powers; and the blessed and altogether lauded Apostles, and the glorious Prophets and the triumphant Martyrs which fought for Christ, and the holy and God-bearing Doctors, and all holy men; and to seek for their intercessions, as able to render us at home with the all-royal God of all, so long as we keep His commandments, and strive to live virtuously."And even before this, there is much in the writings of the church fathers concerning the saints praying for us in heaven.
Calvin rejected apostolic succession because it is wrong. If you think he is wrong, prove it from the bible. Do you think that the methodology of the disciples to select a new apostle is the way to select new apostles? By lot. And because they have seen the risen Christ. Which one among your church has not only been taught directly by Jesus, since the beginning and has seen the Risen Lord Jesus? None. And if that was the method - and there are no others in the bible, then the time of the Apostles ended with the last Apostle dying out - with their words recorded in the NT.
The church fathers - some of them took it more seriously than others. Appointing bishops is not the same as appointing Apostles. They are not the same thing at all. James was a bishop - or elder of Jerusalem. But he was not an apostle. Why is it that OC do not know these things? Because they rely to heavily on their church traditions and not the Words of God.
Athanasius' words are good words. I have used them many times in the past. But they are not words used to justify apostleship or the succession of apostles.
Real Christians would never pray to a Saint when they can pray to the God of Heaven. Honoring the saints and even Mary does not mean praying to them. I take the view that by praying to the Saints and to Mary dishonors them. It elevates them to a place which is not theirs. Honoring them is to place them humbly as servants of the Lord.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Calvin rejected Apostolic Succession because it is not commanded in the Bible. Apart from the event at the beginning of Acts to replace Judas, no new apostles were appointed to make up the 12. The 12 play a significant part in the church just like the 12 tribes play a part in the OT. Paul, was different. He was selected by Christ as Apostle to the Gentiles. Yet no other apostles were called.
I also agree that we should not pray to the Saints. What a preposterous and adulterous and idolatrous notion. Giving the Saints the sense of deity is to attribute to them godhood.
Augustine had some things right. I also think he was wrong in relation to Apostolic Succession. Indeed it is his writings which gave the pope credibility. He was also incorrect in relation to church governement. Like Calvin he got things wrong - a little like the patriarch of Constantinople or Moscow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I saw your question before and decided not to answer it. It frankly is none of your business. I do not propose to leave any more personal details on this site for your continuing abuse and exploitation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
By the canons of the 2nd ecumenical council, Calvin is a heretic for refusing to call Mary theotokos, or mother of God.By the canons of the 6th ecumenical council, Calvin is a heretic for teaching monenergism.By the canons of the 7th ecumenical council, Calvin is a heretic for his iconoclasm.
Your statements are wrong on so many levels. Firstly, just to be clear, Calvin was not specifically declared a heretic by any of these councils. Each council occurred almost a 100 years prior to Calvin.
Secondly, the term for Mary, is misleading. This was what Nestorious attempted to explain in the first place. Theo - meaning God and Tokos - meaning bearer. Mary unhelpfully has almost been deified by both the OC and the RC. She is the most blessed woman in history, to give birth to the Incarnate God. This can never be taken away from her. And she deserves all honor and respect. But she should never be deified. She is not God. And she should not worshiped. I for the record have no issue with the notion that Mary was the mother of the Incarnate God, Jesus. But what is misleading is to use the general term God, which may refer to Trinity. Mary is NOT the mother of the Trinity.
I think the term "bearer" is more appropriate than the term "Mother". Tokos does not mean mother. The OC and the RC have both given to Mary "attributes" well above what the Scriptures give to her. They suggest that their reverence for her is their intent. Yet, to pray to Mary or to any of the saints lifts them to a position of deity. Saints in Heaven do not work independently to God. Praying to Mary or any of the Saints attribute to them omniscience. How can any one human, even in heaven, hear more than one prayer at at time? Yet millions of people pray to Mary simultaneously. This is nonsense. And why anyone would pray to Mary or any of the Saints and not to God is absurd. Why go to second best or third best when the Best is available and willing to assist?
Furthermore, suggestions that she remained a virgin for her entire life are inconsistent with the Scriptures, firstly in respect to the fact that James is clearly her child. Secondly, for Jesus to be the Son of David, required a marriage to take place between Mary and Joseph. A marriage is not a real marriage without consummation. If Mary remained a virgin, then her marriage was not never consummated, meaning it was a fake marriage. Not only is this suggestion suggesting God is fraudulent, but that it was not a real marriage, but ultimately means that Jesus would be unable lawfully to claim to be the Son of David. The implications are significant when we move away from Scripture to embrace a nonsense doctrine.
In relation to your false assertion that Calvin was a guilty of monoenergism. This is untrue. Calvin agreed with the ruling of that council in relation to the heresy of monoenegism. That doctrine related to the will of Christ. You are however mistaking this heresy with Calvin's view in relation to the work of the Spirit which is labled Monergism. Admittedly they are very close in spelling and it is easy to see why you made a mistake in one sense. Yet, they are quite different and the fact that you chose to use this - provides a hint of your dislike for him. You would prefer to see him in the worst light, rather than seeing him as made in the image of God. It seems you have simply picked up a textbook somewhere and believed it without checking the sources or the truth of the matter. One can only imagine that if this is an example of how you research, the conclusions you reach are probably also reached in a similar way.
Iconoclasm is something that Calvin would have been. Yet I find it difficult to know why this particular view would cause someone to be labeled a heretic. I would think that the Orthodox position on Jesus not being capable of being the Son of David is a much more significant heresy. Cavin as all Reformers hold to what is called the Regulative Principle of Worship. This they believe is derived from the Scriptures and for my part it is clearly true. Luther on the other hand, like the Roman Catholics and OC held to what is called the Normative Principle of Worship. This is why Luther in line with the RC and the OC and indeed every other Christian denomination and sect hold too - they can each see icons and other religious relics as part and parcel of worship in the church. The difference however is quite stark and I might add one of the significant reasons that I am reformed in Worship. And essentially why it would be impossible for me to become a member in a non-reformed church.
The Regulative Principle of Worship stipulates that not all worship is correct worship or acceptable to God. The story of Cain and Abel illustrates that well enough. Similarly David's attempt to bring the Arc of the Covenant in a non- proper method brought swift judgment to those carrying the Arc even when they sincerely attempted to protect it from falling over. For the Reformed position - the ends do not justify the means. Yet it also a clear continuity with the OT and ancient practices. We worship God in the way God wants us to worship him, not in the way that want too.
The regulative principle in crude terms means that "unless the Bible commands it, it is forbidden.
The normative principle in crude terms means that "unless the Bible forbids it, it is permissible.
Obviously the two are quite stark in contrast. The second is used by Charismatics to worship God by bringing in wrestlers into the church building and to use coke and mars bars for holy Communion. The first would be able to denounce both of those forms of worship. The second Icons are not commanded in the Bible. Hence to utilize them in worship is for the reformed person, forbidden and directly moves towards not just veneration - but idolatry.
It is my view and that of the Reformers that it is the usage of the normative principle - that has created the schisms around the world. When people think that they can worship God in any way they like - it is bound to create diverse opinions about what that looks like. And so far as the bible does not forbid - then they will continue to spread. The OC holds to this principle. Only the Reformed Churches hold to the regulative principle, the other churches abandoning the ancient practices of worship.
I would add that Calvin is not a heretic for being iconclastic in his position. Yes that was the position of the 7th council. Yet Many Christians do not accept Councils after the 4th for good reason because each of the following councils rejected the position of the 4th. Not overtly but in their practice. Prior to that time - heresies were determined by the council. At that council - another authority was put up - the Scriptures as the binding authority. Yet, despite this - after that time, the councils proceeded to reject this principle and follow church tradition and practice and leaders - not the Scriptures.
To be honest - for me Calvin is not my God. Calvin was a man. Sinful like the rest of us. He has a good mind and knew the Scriptures exceedingly well. Yet he made his mistakes just like ALL of the Saints before him. Who can forget Peter, the great apostle and his denial of Jesus?
I don't call my self a Calvinist as a matter of practice. I don't even call myself Reformed or Presbyterian. These are handy labels in different circumstances - but my allegiance is to the Lord Jesus Christ and to Him I am bound. And I would reject any of these labels if I found them to be a distraction from serving my Lord.
Created:
-->
@Juice
God destroys a good family for no reason.God made a bet with Satan that Job, a good and blameless man, would remain faithful even if he killed his children and ruined his life. Here we see God indicting himself for the crime, openly confessing that he destroyed a family "for no reason.""The Lord said to Satan, 'Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one like him on the Earth, a blameless and upright man who fears God and turns away from evil. He still persists in his integrity, although you incited me against him, to destroy him for no reason.' " (Job 2:3 New Revised Standard Bible)
Thanks for that verse.
God is the creator of life. What he gives he can take away and give back. No one else has that capacity. I take the view that what God does between himself and the angels or Satan is one thing and cannot be compared to what he commands humans to do. Apples and Oranges. This verse is vague by the way. In the Hebrew it can read that Satan incited God against Job for no good reason. Not necessarily God destroyed Job for no good reason. The words in Hebrew are in a different word order to English and could mean either. Obviously, both have quite different meanings.
Still, despite it vagueness and possible alternative readings - let us say that you are correct that God did destroy Job for no good reason. IT does not change what I said in my previous post.
The OP here asked me if I would murder him if God asked me too. And I said that God would never ask us to kill people unlawfully. What God does himself is quite different to what he will ask me to do. I am not the creator of life. A better example for you I think would have been the example of God asking Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. That is more akin to the OP's question because it is asking God to kill someone who has not broken covenant and I would at least on the face of it - seem unnatural and unjustified.
Of course, the end result is Abraham did not kill his son. And it appears that God had prepared a lamb to be killed instead. So it appears that God never really anticipated that Isaac would be killed. But it is the principle - I suppose - that in this case and it is certainly the only one I can think of where God does ask one of his servants to kill someone without proper justification.
And to be honest I don't have a response to Abraham. I know the meaning of the passage - and it was a test of his loyalty and it was later used as an example of God giving his own son to be sacrificed. Yet the story is still difficult. But it is so because God never apart from this story requests humans to kill others who have not broken covenant.
But in relation to the OP, the answer remains the same. God does not ask individuals to kill unlawfully. Abraham is an exception to the rule - but it proves the rule. It does not disprove it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I never considered myself a Calvinist.As the church has deemed his teachings heretical, I have no good reason to study Calvin further.
So how can you in good faith suggest Calvin interpreted Augustine wrong?
That is nothing short of slander.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Blessed Augustine was the first church father I studied in depth. The church I spent the most time in at the time was a Calvinist one even.I believe Calvin interpreted St Augustine wrong. That the big take away for me.I was really interested in patristics. In the end, this prepared me to accept Orthodoxy.St Athansius' "On The Incarnation" is practically required catechuman reading.
I am pleased you attended a Calvinist Church. Your understanding of Calvinism however seems deficient.
Because of your deficiency of Calvin's doctrines it is difficult for me to agree with you that Calvin interpreted Augustine wrong. If your doctrines in respect of Calvin were right or accurately presented his position, then you would have more credibility in saying Calvin misunderstood Augustine. That is a big take away for me.
Athanasius ought to be required reading for any seminary student. He, like Augustine, and Calvin share common theology. This is why in reformed colleges Augustine, Athanasius, and other early church fathers of both East and West are required reading. We do not shy away from their teaching - we embrace it. It is incorrect to suggest that Reformed colleges do not teach early church history. It is absolutely required for a reformed position to try and not repeat the errors of the past, but to learn from it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YeshuaBought
Yes Yahweh the God of the Bible is, supernatura;. He has to be, to be a Spirit.
Explain your position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I have been consistant from the start.Unity with Rome can only happen when they abandon their heresies. As long as they hold this doctrine of Papal Supremacy in particular, it is impossible.
What about unity with Constantinople? Are you happy to remain in communion with them despite their agreement to dispense with the disunity?
By remaining in communion with Constantinople you give credence to his position in respect of Rome. Moscow refused to compromise and to remain compromised.
But your church out of "prudence" has compromised.
I wonder how much longer Moscow will tolerate your church's stance on compromise?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
My church is in communion with both Moscow and Constantinople. Most churches are. The bishops as I said are prudent about these things.I guarantee that if he actually made a false union with Rome, he would be rejected. Even if all the bishops betrayed the church but one, we will have another St Mark of Ephesus!The gates of hell will not overcome the church.
Interesting. You seem to agree with Moscow's position to not be in communion with Constantinople. Yet your own church remains in communion with two churches which are not in communion. How do you really justify such a hypocritical stance? SO prudence - which is really another word for compromise does have a line in a sand. You talk with a double forked tongue when you talk of unity. Constantinople is no longer in excommunication with Rome. Rome no longer is excommunicated. This is the fact. It is not reconciliation. Moscow has excommunicated Constantinople. Yet your church remains united to both - and so unity (or prudence) as you might put gives way to truth.
By the way- gates defend. and gates are a place of wisdom or where the elders hang out. The Gates of Hell not prevailing is not a picture of Satan attacking the church - it is the church attacking the Gates of Hell. The Church will prevail over Satan and will storm the gates of Hell. In all of its defenses and all of its wisdom.
But you have lost me as a potential convert to the OC. You have demonstrated that the OC is no different to any other congregation that says one thing - no unity and yet will compromise on unity with prudence. You reject Rome because you refuse to compromise - and yet you accept Constantinople out of prudence - a significant compromise - and clearly witnessed by a truer church - Moscow.
In other words, Moscow has demonstrated integrity by not compromising. Not your church. Even Constantinople demonstrates greater integrity than your church by understanding that reconciliation is worth pursuing. Yet your church - cannot figure out whether it is hot or cold. Prudence????
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I legitimately find your idea of unity offensive. You clearly don't understand the implications of this false unity for unity sake.Union with Rome! What a joke. I wonder what Calvin would think?Not really. No other reformer in the protestant movement has so thoroughly had their teachings deemed heretical as John Calvin. Like hell we'd join up with churches that still point to this man as if he were some great theologian.
I am not trying to be offensive. Nor am I saying that you should unite for the sake of unity over and above truth. I have said this several times.
I however do find your consideration that union with Rome at all - offensive and robs the cross of its power. Calvin was never opposed to the Roman Church being reformed. Hence upon the right circumstances he would have united. His heart was towards forgiveness - not division.
Calvin was a godly man. He was a true pastor in God's church. His doctrines were in complete accordance with Augustine. If Calvin was a heretic so was Augustine. Yet even the Roman Church nor the OC threw Augustine out. Or Athanasius, another wonderful student whom the Reformers embraced fondly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Excuse me, I know you protestants love to deliver long sermons(having even replaced your altars with the lecturer's podium), but I am not interested in reading through your long broken up tirades to get to the crux of what you are saying.Stop breaking up my posts into pieces please. Make it shorter. Make a point or two at most. It is overwhelming for me to have to hold several conversations at once.What am I getting out of what you are saying? That you have judged the church. Even unfairly so.Of course we can't be one. We don't share the same faith. Union with your church is just as abominable as having union with Aryans or Nestorians. It's no exageration. If you want unity, if you want to end the schisms, do it the right way. Become orthodox. We aren't going to compromise. If a few renegade bishops betray the church, in the end they will be rejected.I certainly could not return to my own vomit and become a protestant. It's orthodox or nothing for me.
I am not judging your church. I am simply pointing out that what you say about it is that it is divided and not divided. You seem to criticize everyone - including your own Bishops. You are the one who wants to stay separate. I have not asked you to compromise. I have not asked you to become protestant. You say your renegade bishops will be rejected. When? Is your church in communion with both Constantinople and with Moscow?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I am Gay - though I am specifically pansexual - I still trend towards being attracted to men - and your god told you to murder me (like the doctrine of the bible does) would you murder me?
My God would not tell me to murder you. The God in the Bible does not tell people to murder others contrary to mischaracterization of him. He might well ask for those who break covenant to be put to death lawfully. But God would not tell an individual to put to death another person. He might well tell the State to. He might well ask for a Church to practice a covenantal death - which is excommunication. He might well tell a parent to practice a covenantal death - disinheritance.
But God would not tell me to kill you unlawfully. He won't tell me to kill you lawfully. He may well provide me with a defense if I did kill you - for instance - self-defense. Of me or another.
But God does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Or race or color - or religion - or wealth or poverty or gender or age. Or intellectual capacity.
But he does discriminate on the basis of covenant. Or loyalty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I would think it is a good thing to try and reconcile. Don't you? And there needs to be dialogues to determine where the heresy is?We already know where the heresy is. Make no mistake, we would love to reconcile. It has been a constant effort from the start. However, we can't compromise the faith that was handed to us from the start.
Yes you might know where it is. But the Romans don't accept this as true. Dialogue means talking it through. Not coming with unrealistic expectations. You need to remember that the RC does not wish to compromise either. True humility does not commence with thinking you are correct. It starts with serving others. Like Jesus when he washed his disciples feet.
I am concerned for the integrity of the whole church. I desire a reunion with all churches, so far as it is true reconciliation and not simply words which have no meaning. For example - the Orthodox Church not meaning it when it says that the anathemas are torn up.The actions of one bishop do not constitute the view of the church. We desire unity too, but that will only happen when people abandon their heretical churches and join the real one.
No, but they constitute what some parts of the church are saying. And not to recognize this is to cut off a leg or an arm. I hear you say you desire unity - but there is no evidence to support this from you. When your patriarch attempted towards unity - you call him controversial. This is nonsense.
As I indicated before, the two choices are either stop compromising, get out of the WWC and excommunicate the church of Constantinople or repent of your sins. Two ways. Standing in the middle like you are now - is to minimise sin. That is the only sure way to ensure that church will cease.Bishops don't tend to throw around anathemas and excommunications haphazardly. The church moves slowly. Lleaves room for repentence.The Patriarch of Moscow and The Patriarch of Constantinople are currently not in communion.
Yes. I can accept that. Yet it does not mean that Bishops cannot get it wrong. Nor that they should re-examine what occurred in the first place. Remember repentance is not just going to happen willy nilly. It sometimes needs to be pointed out in a discussion.
If the Patriarch of Moscow is not in communion with Constantinople - that demonstrates that the OC is not united but divided. Is your jurisdiction in communion with both Moscow and Constantinople? And if so - how does that work? And if not, with whom are you not in communion with and with whom are you not in communion with and why?
It seems to me the more we get into understanding your church - that it is more and more divided and inconsistent. What about the American Jurisdiction? Is it communion with Constantinople and with Moscow?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The Orthodox involvement in the WCC is not intended to legitimize these churches. There is plenty written on this subject within the church.
Whatever the OC intends by its involvement is anyone's guess. Every church I suppose has its own agenda for joining the WCC. Every church writes volumes on the reasons for its involvement in the WCC. The point is however that any church joining the WCC legitimizes every other church by its mere presence. It is a World council of churches per se - and the only way any church is able to join is with the express agreement that every other church is legitimate. If a church does not agree that any or every other church on the WCC is legitimate, then it would not join. Again, how many OC families are within the WCC? It simply is a fraud to be a full member on the WCC and deny that any other church is legitimate.
The controversy is about bad ecumenism. That is, when legitimacy IS given to these churches. Our involvement is moreso intended to act as a way to introduce The Church to these churches who are largely ignorant of it.
The OC involvement might have such an intended manner - but don't be fooled. Every other church is also introducing itself to the OC and its adherents. And whether the controversy is about bad ecumenism is really beside the point because the OC is engaged in ecumenism. As such the OC is also operating in bad faith. On one hand it says every other church is legitimate and on the other hand they are saying they are the only true church and every other church is heretical. Bad faith and hypocritical. And deceitful. It is shameful - and I cannot think why you think this is acceptable.
Since the founding of the WCC, the prevailing view is that these meetings are mostly unproductive. The reason? The heretical churches want legitimacy. We can't do that, because to do that would be to compromise the truth.
I think that its engagement and continuing with the WCC is not about other church's seeking legitimacy. There seems almost a sense of the OC wanting to seek its own legitimacy. Certainly it wants its cake and to eat it as well. Too late, you have compromised. And if you cannot see this - then you are continuing in blindness.
As long as the pope of Rome holds to this view of Papal supremacy, reunification will not be possible. Don't get it backwards, the pope who makes himself king of all Christendom cannot in any way engage us with humility. That is why even contemporary saints have refused to even speak with him until he humbles himself.
I can still adhere to the view that the Roman Church is a legitimate church even though I disagree completely with its error in relation to Papal supremacy. There is no reason why the OC could not humble itself recognizing the Roman Church as legitimate, and also refuse its authority over them. There is no reason that it the OC cannot continue to act exactly as it is now - each church within its jurisdiction with separate authority but part of the One Church. Given the things we have discussed today in relation to Constantinople and other OC - most other jurisdictions from your position consider it appropriate to remain in communion with Constantinople yet disagree with its position on the papacy. This is a precedent which enables the OC to reconcile with the Papacy and not be subject to its errors in papacy.
The pope might well say he is the king of the Church. So what? He has no authority over me or my congregation. Yet this does not mean that his is an illegitimate church. Just as yours is still legitimate despite the fact that I think you practice a works based salvation.
I also reject your view that the pope is unable to demonstrate humility. The mutual position where both the pope and the patriarch expressed regret and tore up documents of anathema on both sides is humiliation for both sides. This was engagement in humility. Why is it that you cannot see this? He expressed that the church had got it wrong. This was the point of the ceremony.
I think rather it seems as though the OC - at least those parts not associated with an attempt to reconcile are the ones with the problem of pride. Unable to come to the table to reconcile and admit the possibility of being wrong. It is shameful to remain in such unforgiveness - and to continue to have communion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
There has never been a period of church history without controversy. Nothing unusual here.
Agreed. But not an excuse is it?
The Roman Catholics have been trying to force reunion for centuries. It won't work. Not as long as they cling to their heresies.
I would think it is a good thing to try and reconcile. Don't you? And there needs to be dialogues to determine where the heresy is?
The problem here is you aren't arguing from an honest position. You yourself desire no union with Rome, even less so with us. Union with Rome couldn't happen without compromising the truth. It is the same with union with protestants.
Sorry but that untrue. I am concerned for the integrity of the whole church. I desire a reunion with all churches, so far as it is true reconciliation and not simply words which have no meaning. For example - the Orthodox Church not meaning it when it says that the anathemas are torn up. And I actually think the Protestants have more in common with the OC than they do with the RC. I certainly have no desire to compromise the truth. But that works both ways. The OC needs to stop compromising if it wants to have any credibility. Or it needs to repent of its sin.
If we were to do as you suggest, the church would cease to exist.
On the contrary, the Church would not cease to exist. As I indicated before, the two choices are either stop compromising, get out of the WWC and excommunicate the church of Constantinople or repent of your sins. Two ways. Standing in the middle like you are now - is to minimise sin. That is the only sure way to ensure that church will cease.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
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!
So are you saying you do not respect the Patriarch of Constantinople? Or are you saying that there are divisions within the Orthodox Church? If this Patriarch is not Orthodox what is he? Is he a heretic? Is his congregation heretical? Do you agree with the author in the playlist 100%?
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.
You do realize how confused that sounds? I do not think you are papists. The Patriarch does sit at the table of Orthodox churches, does he not? Why would your congregation which is in a different jurisdiction still permit him this honor of chairing the meetings or the table if he is a heretic or at best - not orthodox? That surely is inconsistent and hypocritical? And your comment about the Roman Catholics still being excommunicated makes no sense. The Patriarch of Constantinople has torn up the excommunication documents and apologized for this. Admittedly, there is not yet reconciliation between the two churches - yet clearly the church at Constantinople is now in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. And again recognized it 50 years later. Not giving them communion and them being excommunicated obviously means two different things. Or are you suggesting that the Orthodox Church was being deceptive in appearance and lying to the Roman Catholics?
It seems to me that is inconsistent for you to call the Roman Catholics excommunicated when at least one patriarch in the Orthodox church has declared it not to be so. The question seems to be - that if the Church of Constantinople is now not excommunicated with Rome, then any churches associated with Constantinople are bound to the same course of action. If indeed Constantinople is in heresy or as you put it unorthodox, then surely your congregation ought to condemn the patriarch of Constantinople? Would you please provide evidence for your congregation's condemnation and excommunication of Constantinople? Or is your author all talk and bluff but not action?
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.
Controversial is not erroneous. It might be, but not necessarily so. Is it so bad a thing to end an schism? Is unforgiveness consistent with the Word of God and the Holy Church? IT seems to me, that Jesus indicated that those who are unforgiving - will have no place in his kingdom. If people leave the church, and going to the Russian one, are they not rejecting the ONE and TRUE HOLY CHURCH?
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.
This is a big call. I thought you indicated that the Orthodox Church was united. Surely the Patriarch of Constantinople was put into that place by God? Do the abbots under his jurisdiction really oppose him? Surely that is more Presbyterian than Orthodox in thinking?
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.
He is the leader of the Church at Constantinople. You have indicated that this is a true church of God. You have said that each church within the Orthodox Church is independent but still a true church. 3.5 millions supporters is not anything to be sniffed at. Are you going to be part of a rebellion - or as I would call it - a reforming of the Orthodox Church? One which will insist that patriarchs or popes can be in error. And if they can be in error in this day, then surely they could have been in error in the time of the schism or prior to that?
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!
Why would they think such a thing is possible if it were not so the case? Personally I would think that the Orthodox Communion is headed by the table. And as anyone who knows anything about committees, or tables, there is always one who is the first among equals. While it is theoretically the situation that all who sit at the table are equals, history, tradition, power, and money always play a part. Even in the Orthodox Church. Unless of course you are suggesting that democracy is the determiner of theology and right and wrong as you sort of imply in the above statement about the Russian church having over 90 Million people. Oftentimes, consensus becomes the best part of valor.
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.
Yes, you said that. But at least one Patriarch in the Orthodox Church has torn those anathemas up. If you knew your church history - you would also know that when the original excommunication took place or anathemas were drawn up they were very specific and aimed towards select people, not at the entire church. On both sides this was the same situation. You seem to consider that you know better than a Patriarch of the Orthodox Church. Is that common knowledge? Do you not accept the authority and hierarchy of the True Church? Or do you decide for yourself what is correct? Rumors are not facts. Rumors are hearsay. Rumors are what Satan uses to manipulate others. The Patriarch of the Constantinople called the pope his brother. Has your congregation excommunicated him for saying this - as surely it is an excommunicable reason to call the anti-Christ your brother?
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.
How many jurisdictions take part in the World Council of Churches? What percentage? Who says it is controversial? Why would any Orthodox Church join with the World Council of Churches if it is a heretical organisation? Surely if even one Orthodox jurisdiction joins then that jurisdiction should be excommunicated from the rest? If not, then the Orthodox Church has lost its credibility. By joining in with the worldwide council of churches, it recognizes the other churches as churches. This is implicit. If they did not consider them churches - then they would not join with them - even as I would never join with the LDS or the JWs. They are not churches and I would never join in with them as any council of churches - since they are not churches. And if a different church did join with the LDS or the JWs as one general group of Baptists did recently, then we would as a Church distance ourselves from them, alerting them as well, that we would not be able to have communion with them until they repented.
Yet, it seems that the Orthodox Churches are ok with their fellow Orthodox congregations having union with the anti-christ or with other churches - who they consider heretical - and then come let them back to have communion with them. If you cannot see the hypocrisy of this - then there is little else to say.
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.
Your priest has been charged by whom? It surely is not just a waste of time, but it is anti-thetical everything you have been saying. Sorry, Mopac, the only way that your church can come out of all of this unfaithfulness is if they either excommunicate all those who join with others - or they get down on their knees and confess that they have been unjustifiably divisive and unforgiving. It is one or the other. Otherwise - your church is simply being unfaithful towards God in fornication or unfaithful towards God in unforgiveness. Either way - it does not come across as faithful and a servant of God.
It is time for the Orthodox Church to take a real stand. A Stand for God. Either a Stand for reconciliation or a Stand for truth. These are not mutually exclusive by the way. But reconciliation is always the aim for believers - even when they separate. And if reconciliation is not possible, because one has sinned unto death, then it should be a strict cutting off. Not giving the perception of reconciliation or peace, by destroying anathemas, or joining in with the World Council of Churches. This is not controversial - it is simply wrong. And to call it controversial is to minimize the seriousness of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
And another meeting - 50 years after the first one. https://catholicphilly.com/2014/05/news/world-news/fifty-years-later-pope-and-patriarch-meet-again-in-jerusalem/ and this time the two pray together - shocking really if they are not from the same true church. And note further in the article, it appears that not only the Catholics and the Orthodox met, but this prayer service included protestants. Lutherans and Anglicans.
Whatever is going on when the leader of the Orthodox church can meet and have a prayer service with other Christians from other Churches?
But then again 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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
https://www.apostolicpilgrimage.org/historicmeeting and another great article by an Orthodox profession as well, declaring at least in his opinion that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches are sister churches.
Isn't this contrary to your notion that the Catholic church is not a true church?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
http://old.melkite.com/mle.html - well worth a read.
This document by the Catholics and Orthodox - clearly puts the situation as one whereby neither is excommunicated from the church anymore. This may not be enough to reconcile the church. Yet, it MUST mean that the Orthodox no longer means that the Roman Catholic Church to be a heretical church. The two churches may not be be able to worship together - yet both ADMIT that the other is a true church of Christ. Otherwise, the words and document is a lie. And when the heads of either church make such a document recognizing the other - but then just says it is a lie - and not true - well then they are obviously not trustworthy in anything.
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?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Here is an interesting depiction from one who had left Orthodoxy. https://www.abc.net.au/religion/why-i-am-not-orthodox/10097536
Created: