Many people accuse the Orthodox Church of idolatry because we love icons. They say our veneration of icons is worship ("latria", the term meaning the respect due and due only to the Trinity). They say, "There is no distinction here, except semantics." After all, we apparently pray to icons, we even kiss them and bow to them. How is that distinguishable from worshiping them?
Well, first off, we don't pray to the icon, we pray to what the icon represents. When an icon poses as the truth itself, it becomes an idol, but when an icon is a stand in for the truth, it remains an icon.
Here is an example: we venerate the Bible (yes, we kiss that and bow to it), because it is an icon of the Word, the Truth (and thus Jesus Christ). But it is NOT Jesus Christ, it is NOT the truth, it is merely a description of it, a stand in. Protestants think of the Bible as the Truth, but we do not. So we see Protestants as engaging in idolatry when it comes to the Bible.
This very important theology is employed in regard to all our icons: our representation of saints, for instance, is intentionally two-dimensional, there is a specific style, realism is intentionally avoided. Why? because if the icon is super realistic, people mistake the icon for what the icon is a representation of, on some level. Icons are painted in such as a way as to remind us that they are icons of what we venerate (or in Christ's case, worship), they are not what we venerate in themselves. You'll notice we don't like statues too much for this reason. We also think the Bible sometimes deliberately says things in a more poetic way than it has to, because trying to convey things too well might cause people to think the Bible is the Truth itself, instead of an icon of the Truth.
Now you might say, "Well this is all well and good, but the bowing and the kissing and praying? aren't those a bit excessive?"
cont
>>473288
Not really. We see the saints as our elders, and before modern times, elders were shown respect by bows and kissing their hand. "Well," you say,"if they are not the saints themselves but not icons, you are obviously making an idol out of the icon by treating it like the saint herself." Really? Imagine if you carried around a locket with your mother's picture in it, and sometimes kissed it; would you be confusing the locket with you mother? I don't think so. But you would be venerating her by kissing it.
"Even supposing I agree with you," you continue, "just supposing, that cannot, CAN NOT justify praying to saints." First of all, praying is just pleading or asking, we do that with people in real life all the time. Secondly, we don't see the saints as dead, so we don't see asking them as any worse than asking someone who is very holy and with here on earth (in fact their icons in Church represent them being with us in worship). Thirdly, the major thing we ask saints for is to pray for us. You say, "But we ask them instead of God directly?" Well, if there were a very holy person you knew, do you think it would be unreasonable to ask them to pray with you? Are you going to tell people who do that, that they should not? Worshiping and praying with others is a very enriching experience, and that includes worshiping and praying with the saints, most certainly.
while you're at it please explain the choice of wood, the impregnation, the basic countouring, the gilding, the painting, the saturation and highlights, the accents, the polishing and the varnishing of an icon.
>>473288
no rituals nor conventions will save mate. otherwise, you remain in the realm of faith and not of certainty.
you can say that rituals matter to preserve the material, given how is perishable anything that humans do, but there is nothing more than this to it.
if you must be recalled day After day to adopt such or such behavior, then it means that you do not behave appropriately as expected beforehand, and it means that you follow the doctrine only by faith and not certainty.
>>473611
Which denomination are you?
>>473463
There's probably a ton of significance to all of these...but I don't feel like reading books on it, unless I started painting icons.
Bumping with music
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntT2VemnVV8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmU23XK_cZ8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQAgrCuKwPc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE1FzSC8DBs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mglw77ZqkLo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MGVBuQHcMk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_6e9T1FpG8
>>475820
Shit, I forgot one of my favorites somehow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncckxAjp8uY
What can anyone tell me about 2 Esdras?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Esdras
Apparently it's in the Slavonic Bible but not considered canon by the rest of Orthodoxy, or Christianity in general, really. I dig Jewish esotericism so the fact this one escaped me for so long is a bit surprising. Why did it only end up in the appendix of the Slavonic Bible? What's the history on that?
Thanks in advance for insights.
I like icons. Sure it may be idolatry if you get very rigorous with some parts of the Bible but religions need a material liturgy with physical objects of cultus. The intellectual "books only" Christianity of Baptists just seems so unnatural and barren to me.
Tbh I'm glad Christian worship got so heavily influenced by Roman, Germanic and Celtic paganism.
>>475869
What's the best form of Christianity that avoids weak self-hating esteem-destroying rhetoric like this? Preferably it should still have a high liturgy and conservative social values.
>>473288
Everything saints wrote down in their books is extracted from the bible. There is no new information or no Divine revelation.
Prove me it is otherwise, prove me the Holy Spirit was or is present anywhere, and why in biblical times, Holy Spirit influenced every converted pagan to speak in tongues and nowadays no one even feels the presence of something spiritual.
>>475891
Being aware of your flaws =/= self-hate
>>475876
It wasn't. Notice that Orthodox icons aren't statues, and aren't supposed to be. They're closer to the Dura-Europos (sadly destroyed by ISIS) Synagogue, than Greek or Roman Temples.
>>475891
Please don't become a Christian if you don't actually believe, or at least want to believe, in God.
Is there an essential reading list on Orthodox Christianity?
>>473288
What is the fate of those who are excommunicated?
>>477279
Do you recommend Seraphim Rose?
Iconoclasm when
>>477221
I am a Christian, and you have no business telling anyone what reasons are good enough to join a church.
>>477315
Nihilism is the ultimate result of an iconoclast attitude
https://www.marxists.org/subject/anarchism/nechayev/catechism.htm
ISIS is the iconoclast movement of our time.
>>477356
And all humans are icons of God. With iconoclasm, you jeopardize the idea that man is made in God's image.
>>475844
>>477349
Romans 14:1-5
Is Orthodox the black metal Christianity?
>>473288
>Protestants think of the Bible as the Truth, but we do not.
So you guys are something wholly different from Christians then. Thanks for letting us know
btw, if your traditions require a large block of text to justify, and many loops to jump through, perhaps you should reconsider them
>>477382
That's about not judging someone for following Jewish or Greek philosophical dietary laws, not about someone wanting the Church to pander to their values rather than God's.
>>477458
The Bible is not God, only God is the Truth, only Christ. When you start worshiping a description of Christ as Christ himself, you are engaging in idolatry.
The Bible is an icon, our most venerated icon, but not God.
>>477467
So the word of God isn't truth
God is truth, but everything He says is lies
Okay
>>477367
I'm afraid I can't help you, I'm Greek Orthodox. Afaik only the Ethiopian Orthodox accept it as canon, but they are a fully Orthodox Church, so I'm guessing its contents aren't heretical.
>>477479
The Bible isn't the Word of God, it is an icon of the Word of God. Christ is the Word of God, to say the Bible is Christ, is idolatry.
>>477494
>The Bible isn't the Word of God
>All scripture is God breathed -Paul
Oh wait Paul is just as icon so I guess hes a liar too
>>473288
>Protestants think of the Bible as the Truth, but we do not.
No, we see it the same as you described. It's a written description of the word of God.
>>477492
It's a VERY interesting document, in which Ezra was taken up to heaven without knowing death's taint.
The traditional Hebrew interpretation of this would likely be him having been taken up by Merkavah, like Enoch and others, though there's a definite implication that Ezra was brought up to become Azriel, angel of death.
Later books also state a scribe named Salathiel, who was quoted as saying, "I, Salathiel, who is also Ezra". Again, depending on certain views of Christian spirituality, this could be seen as angelic influence from Ezrael/Azrael on Salathiel, though this view of spirituality is neither confirmed nor denied by various churches.
>>477500
It is. Scripture comes from God, but to say it is synonymous with the Word is idolatry. In the Beginning was the Word. To say Scripture and the Word are the same, is to say that Scripture, the Bible, is God. The Bible is made in the image of the Word, it is an icon of the Word.
> Really? Imagine if you carried around a locket with your mother's picture in it, and sometimes kissed it; would you be confusing the locket with you mother? I don't think so. But you would be venerating her by kissing it.
That is a deceptive and false comparison, people dont believe that kissing a locket is an important -if not necessary- part of being a good and loving child, neither are they educated from their infancy to do or believe so.
>First of all, praying is just pleading or asking, we do that with people in real life all the time.
Now you are either being lazy or deliberately deceptive; asking someone to hold the bus for me is not equivalent to seeking aid from the divine and unworldly, asking them to literally interfere with the material world and beings in it. The former requires no interference.
Prayer is making a connection with the divine to plead or glorify it. Hence why these terms are not synonymous and why wouldn't make sense if someone said I prayed to my friend so that he would cover the next round of drinks.
>Secondly, we don't see the saints as dead, so we don't see asking them as any worse than asking someone who is very holy and with here on earth
See my above example, now in this instance you are hiding behind semantics with a unique definition of death. "Your Honour I cannot be guilty of murder of this saint because he is still alive, its just that he is alive in a special way , sure nothing remains of him but his ashes but the fact I did not destroy his soul - arguably the most important part of ones being means that he is alive as you or I".
Heaven is not part of the material world.
>(in fact their icons in Church represent them being with us in worship).
See my other post, this is and the rest of this paragraph is a great example of how symbols grow and grow in significance going from simple tools to something else entirely
>>477519
>Thirdly, the major thing we ask saints for is to pray for us. You say, "But we ask them instead of God directly?" Well, if there were a very holy person you knew, do you think it would be unreasonable to ask them to pray with you?
Once again another deception you aren't asking saints to pray with you but for you - hence the intercession aspect . Secondly the next sentence is just an appeal to what you perceive as common sense
>Are you going to tell people who do that, that they should not? Worshiping and praying with others is a very enriching experience, and that includes worshiping and praying with the saints, most certainly.
" Your not the boss of me ! If it feels good its good"
Honestly you are like a more deceptive Wolfsheim with all your false analogies and comparisons.
>>477279
Is it a serious at all?
>>477534
>Ethopian commentary
Any leads or would that be mostly sailing without rudder out in my English speaking world?
>>473288
What are your thoughts on Tolstoy? Ive only ever seen Dostevsky discussed here.
>>477528
No. First of all, God's Breath is not his Word (the Son), God's Breath is the Holy Spirit. Scripture was written through guidance by the Holy Spirit, yes.
>>477539
Being excommunicated is the most serious bad thing that could happen to an Orthodox Christian
>>477528
Apparently I'm not a protestant then lol. The bible is a book, written by a collection of individuals over the course of centuries, and compiled by some early Christians. It didn't literally exist in its current form at the beginning of time. I don't pray to my bible. It's simply a book. Ideas in written form. It's the ideas within that are important, whether they're written in english in a book, spoken in han chinese by a street preacher, or painted in hieroglyphs on a cave wall.
>>477542
>>477543
I like Tolstoy, but he wasn't Orthodox. He was actually excommunicated by the Church, after pouring constant attacks on it and even blaming it for famines. He hated the Orthodox Church. So of course, Dostoevsky is going to be more discussed, since the Orthodox Church was the center of his worldview.
>>477545
Thats not what scripture says
It says scripture is God breathed. Yes, if someone is breathing something out, they are speaking.
I've given scripture, you've given man made notions
>>477555
>Apparently I'm not a protestant then
Yeah you apparently aren't. So please don't mislead people by saying you are one in the future.
>>477564
So, let me understand something. You think God literally poofed thousands of magical bibles into existence at the beginning of time as they are in every language and now they've found their way to hotel rooms and walmart book sections? Are you saying that the literal paper it's printed on is holy or something, or that the words within are what's important?
>>477553
Then why is something like marrying an non orthodox person enough to result in excommunication?
>>477573
Words within are whats important
>>477542
I'd recommend sending an email to an Ethiopian Orthodox priest. There are many in the English speaking world.
>>477562
Why did he hate the Orthodox, isnt hate too strong a word for a christian as devout as he was?
What is wrong with Tolstoy's Orthodoxy?
>>477578
So then I'm not sure what the argument between you and Orthodox guy is. We don't literally worship a book as protestants.
>>477564
You do know in both Greek and Hebrew, "breath" and "spirit" are synonymous? The Holy Spirit could be translated as "Holy Breath"? Now, are you contending that the Son proceeds from the Spirit?
>>477592
>We don't literally worship a book as protestants.
We don't worship a book. Are you being blatantly obtuse?
He said the bible isn't the word of God. I say it is. Thats literally it.
Funny how you jump ship from calling yourself Protestant and then to aligning yourself with Orthodox as "We". I have a feeling you aren't entirely certain what you even believe
>>477595
Name a single translation that translates the text in that way
>>477577
It's not, unless the bishop of your diocese is anal retentive, and even then the most he could do would be to excommunicate you from the diocese, not the whole Church.
>>477588
Tolstoy was basically a Quaker.
>>477603
Sorry, but can you go into a bit more detail?
Are Tolstoys works such as the Gospel in brief or the Kingdom of God things one shouldnt read?
>>477601
I was basing that off of this http://stgeorgegoc.org/pastors-corner/excommunication
It makes it seem like it goes far beyond the whims of a bishop or just a single church
>>477600
>Name a single translation that translates the text in that way
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7307.htm
http://biblehub.com/greek/4151.htm
God doesn't literally breathe, you understand that, right? God's "breath" is the Holy Spirit. "God's breath" and "the Spirit of God" are the same exact phrase in Greek (Greek grammar doesn't need syntax, the form of "God" here would simply be genitive, "God's" and "of God" would be conveyed by the same grammatical case of "God" and it could be placed either before or after "Spirit").
>>477600
>Funny how you jump ship from calling yourself Protestant and then to aligning yourself with Orthodox as "We"
I actually used we to reference myself as protestant, but you're right, I'm not entirely on board with every idea from either side. But, protestant isn't really a set form of ideals anyway, since there are 1000's of denominations. I guess I would say that I do believe that scripture is the word of God but it requires a more nuanced understanding of history and theology than just, "God dun said deez hurr wurrds." For instance, Paul's words. Did he consider every book in the bible to be holy scripture? After all, the bible as we know it did not exist when he was writing his letters.
Kind of tldr but if I worship a statue of Zeus it's ok by YHWH because I'm not worshipping the statue itself as an idol, but worshipping Zeus' statue as an icon. Zeus be praised.
>>477635
If you're worshipping the statue as a representation of Zeus, then yes, it would be idolatry under any mainstream denomination of Christianity.
>>477635
Care to join me over in the occultism thread?
>>477615
I haven't read them, but there's nothing necessarily wrong with reading Quakerish thought. Kierkegaard was effectively a Quaker, he didn't think baptism or communion were necessary and hated the idea of an institutional Church, but most of his thought is very highly regarded by the Orthodox Church. If Tolstoy were born in the West, he would never have clashed with the Orthodox Church, and if Kierkegaard were born in the East, he probably would have ended up excommunicated as well.
It's not that Tolstoy is not a valuable thinker on Christianity, but I'm answering your question as to why he isn't used a poster writer for the Orthodox Church, even if a lot of thought was very in line with it (Elder Zosima, in the Brother's Karamazov, is pretty much on the same page with him on most things)
>>477645
That doesn't seem to be what op is saying. He is saying sun worship is idol worship is idol worship because you are worshipping the object rather than a representation
>>477648
How do we know that Tolstoy and Kierkegaard were not correct?
>>477648
Tolstoy's Kingdom of God, by the way, contains a great deal of invective against the Orthodox Church. A lot of it is valuable, but as a result of that, he can't be considered an Orthodox thinker (nor would he wish to be).
>The practical business of the Church consists in instilling by every conceivable means into the mass of one hundred[71] millions of the Russian people those extinct relics of beliefs for which there is nowadays no kind of justification, "in which scarcely anyone now believes, and often not even those whose duty it is to diffuse these false beliefs." To instill into the people the formulas of Byzantine theology, of the Trinity, of the Mother of God, of Sacraments, of Grace, and so on, extinct conceptions, foreign to us, and having no kind of meaning for men of our times, forms only one part of the work of the Russian Church. Another part of its practice consists in the maintenance of idol-worship in the most literal meaning of the word; in the veneration of holy relics, and of ikons, the offering of sacrifices to them, and the expectation of their answers to prayer. I am not going to speak of what is preached and what is written by clergy of scientific or liberal tendencies in the theological journals. I am going to speak of what is actually done by the clergy through the wide expanse of the Russian land among a people of one hundred millions. What do they, diligently, assiduously, everywhere alike, without intermission, teach the people? What do they demand from the people in virtue of their (so-called) Christian faith?
And these comments are not passing, he does on for quite a bit and is blatantly polemical.
>>477668
They can only be correct, regarding sacraments, if Christians were completely wrong for 2000 years.
>>477679
>They can only be correct, regarding sacraments, if Christians were completely wrong for 2000 years.
*If Catholics and Orthodox were completely wrong for 2000 years
>>477679
Christians were always wrong though
>>477691
You're a spaz
>>477661
>I meant name a single bible translation, where the scholars actually decided that translating it "Spirit" was a more sensible choice
They don't, because "the Holy Spirit" is an actual Christian formula for reference, so it makes more sense to refer to him as such. But the point is that the Pneuma of God is the Pneuma of God, there isn't Pneuma of God A, vs. Pneuma of God B. The idea of these dichotomies are thoroughly unchristian, just like there isn't Christ's Body A, B and C, but there only one Christ's Body. The Church is Christ's Body (which the Temple of Jerusalem was a stand in for, hence why God destroyed it), The Eucharist is Christ's Body, and Christ's physical hands and eyes are Christ's Body.
>>477688
>Could they have been wrong though?
I don't think so. If they were, why would people nearly two thousand years later know better?
>>477701
>All these loops
Or maybe they don't because translating it as "breathed" makes more sense grammatically
"Word of God" = Jesus
God's words = Utterances made by God the Father, such as "Let there be light."
The Bible is neither "the Word of God" nor words by God, they are human words that were inspired by the Holy Spirit. You should treat the Bible with respect for the important ideas it contains, but it is not in and of itself divine the way Muslims and Jews believe their scriptures are. To say otherwise is simply idolatry.
>>477519
The lockets are their mother, not saints or the Theotokos or Jesus. There would be nothing wrong with educating people to kiss such lockets if they wore them.
Pray and plead are the same word (pray tell, prithee, etc.)
Heave is not a separate realm from the material in Orthodox Christianity. Heaven is a dimension that was sundered by the fall, but the two dimensions can intersect sometimes (they will be totally reunified in the Restoration of All Things), and Divine Liturgy is one of those times. We see setting up heaven and the material as mutually exclusive to be very Western, Gnostic and anti-material
>>477525
I pray for my friends as well
>>477707
>I don't think so. If they were, why would people nearly two thousand years later know better?
Because they were free to study the teachings of Christ outside of the conditions of a church established by the Roman Empire? Given the authoritarian nature of the Empire and the Church would it not mean that if there were mistakes or ideas that had more to do with those circumstances it would be very hard to change them from within wihout pulling the rug from their feet?
>>477725
So how do we know which parts are true and which ones are not? Why believe any of it then? Is the bible just a philosophical text akin to Plato's works or any other books?
>>477728
>>477728
>The lockets are their mother, not saints or the Theotokos or Jesus.
The locket is a piece of metal with a picture in it.
>There would be nothing wrong with educating people to kiss such lockets if they wore them.
Telling children that unless they kiss a little metal box they aren't hnouring or loving their mothers seems to be fairly wrong even if one (like you did) ignore all the other points in my posts.
>Pray and plead are the same word (pray tell, prithee, etc.)
Only if you once again dive into semantics and use pray in purely secular terms. Prayer has specific divine connotations for believers - see the example used in my earlier post.
>Heave is not a separate realm from the material in Orthodox Christianity. Heaven is a dimension that was sundered by the fall, but the two dimensions can intersect sometimes (they will be totally reunified in the Restoration of All Things), and Divine Liturgy is one of those times. We see setting up heaven and the material as mutually exclusive to be very Western, Gnostic and anti-material
Then if we use your reasoning it should be possible to do ridiculous things like find God, angels or the soul empirically during the liturgy.
>I pray for my friends as well
Literally not an argument unless you want to make appeals based upon your own personal authority.
Why did you start a whole thread on the question of Idolatry if you had no investment in debate on the subject?
>>477657
No...OP is saying it's not worship at all, because it isn't.
>>477747
>So how do we know which parts are true and which ones are not?
Learn more about Christianity and its history. Use reason and logic combined with faith to decide what seemingly makes sense to you.
>Why believe any of it then?
It's a good guide to understanding the religion. Also a lot of philosophical stuff that is very useful to spiritual growth.
> Is the bible just a philosophical text akin to Plato's works or any other books?
No, it undoubtedly contains scripture derived from people who were very devout and possibly even commisioned by God. But, to say that it is perfect and holy truth in every way sets us at odds with with history. Protestants use the bible the same way that Catholics and Orthodox use the church. As a simple end all be all so that people don't have to truly think or understand. Just listen to the rules. This is fine in my view. Most people are kind of stupid and wouldn't be inclined to seek to understand further. But I see no reason to believe that the Catholic Church is infallible or that the bible is a 100% perfect document that's never been altered or that everything in it is 100% factual ocurences.
>>477800
>combined with faith
lmfao
>>477783
>The locket is a piece of metal with a picture in it.
And more than that. That is like saying the Bible is just paper with some ink on it.
>Telling children that unless they kiss a little metal box they aren't hnouring or loving their mothers seems to be fairly wrong even if one (like you did) ignore all the other points in my posts.
You're coming a very modernist perspective. Today, kissing your mother herself isn't even seen as required to honor her.
>Only if you once again dive into semantics and use pray in purely secular terms. Prayer has specific divine connotations for believers - see the example used in my earlier post.
"Pray" as a separate word from "plead" didn't arise until well over a thousand five hundred years after the advent of Christianity. The English language is not a source of Christian dogma, if it were, "adore" would be used far more sparingly, since adoration is synonymous with latria (one wouldn't even use it for those one called "Your Worship").
>Then if we use your reasoning it should be possible to do ridiculous things like find God, angels or the soul empirically during the liturgy.
Angels don't have material bodies, but they are certainly present spiritually during Divine Liturgy, and the icons of them remind us of that.
>>477800
The Bible is infallible, but not in the modernist sense of being some collection of purely factual datum. The Bible is infallible in the sense that it contains no hamartia (literally "missing the mark", it is used in Greek tragedy to mean the flaw that leads to the downfall of a great hero, and it is the word for "sin" or "fault" in the New Testament; there are synonymous terms in Latin and Hebrew, but not in English ("vice" meaning something different than the Latin word, and "sin" meaning to be guilty of something). In the same sense, pictoral icons are also infallible. The Bible is infallible as an icon, but if you take to be the thing it portrays, or some carbon copy (idol) of it (which it does not endeavor to be), then you're approaching the whole thing from the wrong direction. The Bible's function is that of an icon, and in this function it is infallible.
>>477829
>lmfao
nice contribution
>>477800
>scripture derived from people who were very devout and possibly even commisioned by God.
Scripture like that falls under apocrypha, not canonical.The cannon IS inspired, there's no maybe nor not
>>477459
Everyone chooses a church based on their own values. Aren't you a convert?
>>477848
>And more than that. That is like saying the Bible is just paper with some ink on it.
The locket is only more than that because you attach special significance to it, which would be better placed on your mother. Attaching significance to the locket is harmful and distracting from the more noble purpose of actually loving and honoring your mother and not a box. You are no different here in your reasoning than the fundamentalists who you decry for worshiping the bible(s) and not its message.
>You're coming a very modernist perspective.
Only if you define modernism as "things I disagree with". Visiting, being affectionate and caring for your mother has always been a far greater way to love and honor ones mother, than being affectionate to her image even before the advent of modernism.
>"Pray" as a separate word from "plead" didn't arise until well over a thousand five hundred years after the advent of Christianity. The English language is not a source of Christian dogma, if it were, "adore" would be used far more sparingly, since adoration is synonymous with latria (one wouldn't even use it for those one called "Your Worship").
I never said that English is the source of Christian dogma only that you are using semantics to hide the weakness of your points - which you continue to do with that unrelated sentence at the end.
Prayer is inextricably linked to the divine, which is something you cannot hid with all your word play and jumping between ancient and contemporary definitions willy nilly.
>Angels don't have material bodies, but they are certainly present spiritually during Divine Liturgy, and the icons of them remind us of that.
"There isnt a material and immaterial divide thats ebil gnostic and western"
-why can we not see or detect angels then?
"oh there is a material and spiritual divide but thats totally different and not evil gnostic and western"
Once again with the semantic games.
>>477744
Can you answer this Con? the question of which is the true way to christ is important I think to the people here
>>477879
To give an example of this: Jesus, who probably laughed, maybe regularly, laughs nowhere in the Gospels. He weeps, but he doesn't laugh. You'll also notice that no one depicted in icons ever laughs either.
"Why is this," you might say, "does Christianity frown on laughter?" Not at all. There is a lot of symbolism in Christian icons, and having one's mouth open is a symbol of being talkative or gluttonous (icons are always depicted with very small mouths for this reason). And so it is something deliberately not depicted in Christian icons, and that includes the Bible...throughout the OT, no character ever laughs (even the Rejoicing David is mentioned to dance and play, but not laugh, even though if were an historical occurrence, he surely laughed), even though the OT also says to be of cheerful and merry and the Psalms talk of laughter.
The only time I recall someone laughing is Sarah, and the laughs are in contrast: at first she laughs when God tells her she will have a child, then he rebukes her and she denies having laughed, but she laughs again when she gives birth and says, "God has given me laughter."
>>477915
I'm a convert, but not based on the Church's values at all. I'm a convert based on the Church being one Christ founded. If I were not Orthodox, I'd probably be in favor of gay marriage, for instance, but instead of saying the Church should be, I accepted the values of the Church. All my politics, philosophy, ethics and outlook come from the Church. If tomorrow Church Canon Law was shown to proscribe posting on 4chan, I wouldn't change faiths, I'd cease to post on 4chan.
>>477928
>All my politics, philosophy, ethics and outlook come from the Church.
>>477928
Don't you think it is immoral to frequent a website such as 4chins? Or do you just stick to the relatively safe boards?
>>477928
>I'm a convert, but not based on the Church's values at all. I'm a convert based on the Church being one Christ founded.
Were you Christian beforehand?
>>477933
>Don't you think it is immoral to frequent a website such as 4chins? Or do you just stick to the relatively safe boards?
Unless his priest tells him not to go here there isnt an issue. He literally states this.
>>477928
There was one issue, one value that drove you to the Orthodox church. I don't know what it was. But it doesn't make your participation in the church any more valid or pure than the participation of those who converted for their wives, those who converted for the liturgy, those who were born into it, or anyone else.
Also gay marriage is fucking absurd even apart from Christianity.
>>477932
this
what the fuck, anon?
>>477928
>I'm a convert, but not based on the Church's values at all.
Read Hume m8. You used reason to lead yourself to Orthodoxy only because that best aligned with your values. If you didnt have a value that required a certain level of logical consistency within a wholly christian framework it would have "led" you elsewhere
>>477921
>The locket is only more than that because you attach special significance to it, which would be better placed on your mother. Attaching significance to the locket is harmful and distracting from the more noble purpose of actually loving and honoring your mother and not a box. You are no different here in your reasoning than the fundamentalists who you decry for worshiping the bible(s) and not its message.
The Bible conveys that message, just as other icons convey their message. I also kiss the Gospel when it's brought out during Orthos, we call it venerating. I venerate the Bible, but I don't worship it.
> Visiting, being affectionate and caring for your mother has always been a far greater way to love and honor ones mother, than being affectionate to her image even before the advent of modernism.
If your mother is still here physically. One used to bow to one's mother and kiss her hand (often one would do this with all elders). But with these gone, you wouldn't see any point to doing them with her image, you'd just hang her image on a wall.
>Prayer is inextricably linked to the divine
Since there is no Biblical distinction between prayer and plead, I disagree. I'd say they were considered separate until the Reformation, and a lot of that had directly to do with objection to praying to saints. It wouldn't matter anyway, even if were called entreating saints, you'd still object.
>Once again with the semantic games
You can detect angels, though. In fact, if you become spiritual enough, you can "see" them, but it's not with your physical eyes (the angel at the tomb is an example of this).
Angels have a spirit and an eternal soul, but not physical body.
Animals have a physical body and an eternal soul, but no spirit.
Man has a physical body, an eternal soul and a spirit, that is what makes him so special.
>>477933
I think looking at pornography on 4chan is definitely immoral. I think using racial slurs and so on is immoral. I don't think frequently 4chan, so long as you steer clear of these, is, because Christ himself said he preferred to hang out with the sick, not the healthy.
>>477945
Everyone I met who's converted for their wives of the Liturgy, believed in God and the Church as Christ's Body.
And there was one value, Christ. The Church is Christ's Body. The reason I think she is the legitimate Christ's Body, is because unlike the Catholic Church, she hasn't waffled on Ecumenical Councils.
>>477952
I have read Hume, and apart from his begging the question on miracles, he's absolutely right. Have you read Notes from Underground?
>>477955
Sounds interesting and all, but how do you prove the last part?
>>477948
I have personal tastes and things I enjoy as an individual, such as books, music and other hobbies. But why would I want to have any kind of ethical outlook apart from God's? Have you read Theology and Social Theory?
>>477973
Do you mean from a Christian perspective, or a secular perspective?
>>477978
Is it possible to prove from a secular perspective or does it require faith?
>>477970
You literally posted "please do not become a Christian" in this thread in response to a critique of Seraphim Rose's rhetoric. Imagine any missionary saint saying that to anyone. Vladimir of Kiev, one of the most widely revered saints of the Orthodox church, had outright pagans baptized on pain of death. He also chose the church based on its liturgy and tolerance for alcohol.
Apparently a preference for a masculine anima, liturgy and conservative values is enough to warrant your discouragement. Let me tell you that regardless of how pure you think your conversion's motives the church at large has no issue with allowing the Lord to call whom He will to worship with them without complaint or judgment.
>>477985
It requires fasting (I don't mean total abstinence, but dietary fasting), prayer, confession (if possible) and a lot of love, you have to affirm love as synonymous with the truth. It can still happen otherwise, but I'm saying if you want to work for it, that is the process.
You see, sin is corruption, it encrusts us spiritually. Sin is like mud all over your goggles. Like mufflers. Imagine trying to read braille when your hands are encrusted with thick corruption.
>>473288
>Many people accuse the Orthodox Church of idolatry because we love icons.
Shut the fuck up. Nobody talks about the Orthodox church. They're too busy hating Christ's church
This board should ban armchair theology talk.You can't argue without knowing the doctrine and, in this case, Orthodox doctrine contains strict concepts.There is no place for discussions based on vague shit they've heard kinda from someone, somewhere.Especially no place for personal interpretations.
Yous niggas would flunk catechism, if yous got a test tomorrow.
>>477998
He's not a retard, he's just coming from a Western perspective.
The Orthodox Church endorses worshiping God with reason. But we don't think reason can prove God, and think that even if it could, that proof would not convince most people who are strong atheists. God, and the Gospels for that matter, as just so fantastic that even if you *did* have logical proof, it wouldn't necessary be able to alter your sentiments because your sentiments are too strong (see Hume). The best way to be convinced of God, is to experience him.
>>478002
The Liturgy is like the Bible, there's nothing wrong with being convinced by it. Heck, nothing wrong with being convinced by the alcohol thing either in contrast with Islam. There is, however, something wrong with saying you find humility repugnant and you want the Orthodox Church minus the need for humility.
>>477955
>The Bible conveys that message, just as other icons convey their message. I also kiss the Gospel when it's brought out during Orthos, we call it venerating. I venerate the Bible, but I don't worship it.
You are avoiding the question of the wisdom and morality about attaching value and affection to material goods rather than the actual thing or person they are being used as a symbol for.
You have gone off and started talking about the distinction between veneration and worship - once again falling back to your tactic or relying on semantics.
also see point A and B from my original post to you.
>If your mother is still here physically.
Good point. It does demonstrate the problem of using this analogy. Still I think that living a Godly and loving life is something that is diminished by ritual and icon obsession.
>One used to bow to one's mother and kiss her hand (often one would do this with all elders).
Whats wrong with the nature of how we express affection changing?
>Since there is no Biblical distinction between prayer and plead, I disagree. I'd say they were considered separate until the Reformation, and a lot of that had directly to do with objection to praying to saints. It wouldn't matter anyway, even if were called entreating saints, you'd still object.
The distinction lies in the target, pleading to divine and spiritual beings is done via prayer. Pleading is what you do to material beings.
The objection is what we ask of them and the primacy of the practice.
>>477955
>You can detect angels, though. In fact, if you become spiritual enough, you can "see" them, but it's not with your physical eyes (the angel at the tomb is an example of this).
This doesnt deal with my previous point you say that the material immaterial distinction is incorrect only to assert a material spiritiual distinction.
>>478019
Let me add that Seraphim Rose rhetoric, in this instance, is not some sort of speculation or opinion, it is reiterating the position of the Church, as espoused by the Desert Fathers and in the Philokalia.
>>477970
>I have read Hume, and apart from his begging the question on miracles, he's absolutely right. Have you read Notes from Underground?
Only C&P. How does NfU resolve the issue posed by hume?
>>477970
>And there was one value, Christ. The Church is Christ's Body. The reason I think she is the legitimate Christ's Body, is because unlike the Catholic Church, she hasn't waffled on Ecumenical Councils.
Why does the Church have to be unchanging?
>>478005
How come Buddhists who do simmilar practices arent lead to Orthodoxy?
>>478019
How dare you presume to decide that is and isn't valid grounds.
Religion is a funny thing, really. Here you are defending a raping murdering warlord's choice of church based on drinking, while condemning someone for wanting a wholesome worldview that doesn't involve totally cucking your own self esteem.
It's not even the teaching itself. Everyone should see his own faults and fight them. it's the incessant rhetoric glorifying feebleness and cowardice. The armchair philosophers telling decent men they can only defend themselves and their rights under extremely narrow circumstances, and even then it was just a necessary evil. Confessors letting criminals and adulterers get away with their crimes because the magic words of penance are all that is needed to make amends. The easy slide from this religion's pathological altruism into leftist politics.
>>478031
>You are avoiding the question of the wisdom and morality about attaching value and affection to material goods rather than the actual thing or person they are being used as a symbol for.
Then are you saying that venerating the Gospel is attaching affection to icon *in opposition* to God?
>Whats wrong with the nature of how we express affection changing?
In a secular sense? Nothing. In a religious sense? Something.
>The objection is what we ask of them and the primacy of the practice.
The pleading to God has primacy because it is coupled with latria. If it were not coupled with latria, it wouldn't have primacy.
>>478043
Notes from Underground is about the problem of trying to live strictly according to reason. As the Underground Man says, reason is only a fraction of his being, you can't satisfy his whole being or even most of it with reason.
>>478037
I said the dichotomy was incorrect, not the distinction. The distinction isn't incorrect anymore than the distinction between depth and width.
>>478050
Why would men 2000 years after Christ, know better than he does?
>>478055
Orthodox spirituality is about harmonizing the material with the spiritual, Buddhist spirituality is about abstracting the spiritual from the material.
>>478078
I think you're getting way off track here: the point is that the Church isn't here to pander to you. Convert for whatever reasons you want, but wanting the Church to be tailored to you is something else.
>>478087
>Why would men 2000 years after Christ, know better than he does?
Because the world 2000 years ago is different to the world 1000, 500 and 100 years ago. There are far more moral questions now adays than back then in all manner of areas.
Why would Christs Church limit itself to the conditions 2000 years ago?
>>478087
>Notes from Underground is about the problem of trying to live strictly according to reason. As the Underground Man says, reason is only a fraction of his being, you can't satisfy his whole being or even most of it with reason.
But living according to is something that Hume establishes as being impossible from the get go as its just a tool.
>>477998
>according to this retard, yes it does
Too quick to discredit, but not seeking to understand. This seems to happen a lot on internet forums, and I'm sure I've been guilty of it myself, but you should not approach a subject looking for ways to argue about it. If you see something as being wrong, then correct it. But it's clear that you did not really understand what I was saying at all. I am not a deist, and I don't believe in only natural happenings. I do believe that God and His prophets have performed miracles. But, on the other hand, I think that there are certain aspects of the bible that perhaps aren't 100% meant to be taken as literal fact. For instance, I don't see being a creationist as a qualification for being a Christian. If my language isn't always sophisticated enough to accurately convey my message, or if I ramble a bit too much, forgive me. This is a complicated and personal subject that I don't claim to have all of the answers for. I'm here to discuss, not to argue.
Constantine, you are a good poster. I like you.
>>478210
Thank you. God bless you.
>>478208
It ministers to this world and as the world changes so it must do so in its ministry
>>478210
What makes you say that though?
>>478208
But in keeping with Hume doesnt that mean you simply following the Orthodox Church because it appeals to you most?
>"There is no distinction here, except semantics."
Actually yes. St. Paul uses the word edouleusate in Galatians 4:8, which as you can see has the same root as dulia, in reference to worshipping false gods. So yes, it is the same thing.
>So we see Protestants as engaging in idolatry when it comes to the Bible.
Except we don't kiss and bow to the Bible since we're not fucking retards.
>>478295
The Church's job is to minister to the world, but not to pander to it.
>>478313
Yes, Orthodoxy is fundamentally existentialist, not a product of calculus. I follow the Orthodox Church instead of a denomination, because the Orthodox Church is actually the one Christ founded, but my decision to follow Christ is not something worked out in a lab.
>>478334
ministering to the world =/= pandering to it, that seems like a false dichotomy. For instance now that women can have access to proper educational opportunities and financial Independence why should they be denied the privilige of leading a congregation if they have the ability?
>>478334
Can you tell us the story of how you came to be a Christian?
Why is it that becoming a Christian wasnt a product of calculus but your choice of the Orthodox denomination was?
>>478325
The Greek word, as used in theology in relation to saints, is from the Septuagint translation of this: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7812.html
Of course, no, you should not do that with false gods, demons. There's a big difference between that, and saying the practice should be totally prohibited except directly to God.
>Except we don't kiss and bow to the Bible since we're not fucking retards.
I think kissing and bowing the Bible as an icon of God, is not idolatrous. But I do think saying the Bible is literally God, as you do, is very idolatrous.
>>478345
Most of the people who lead congregations in the early Church were not educated, it has nothing to do with that.
>>478016
>Papist getting jealous/lonely because the Protestants are talking to the weird cousin from out of state.
>>478377
What is it about then?
>>478350
I think the gratitude of Christianity. We should feel so much more grateful and obligated to society, think of all the labor and effort that has come before to create your culture, your language, your technology, your way of life, your very existence, we should live in constant gratitude toward this unfathomable obligation. And I think Christianity following back this gratitude all the way to a source of all sources, was very moving to me. This engendered my respect for Christianity, but spiritual experience is what made me actively have faith.
Sorry about forgetting this I forgot to hit send this is the post my earlier ones were refering to
>Well, first off, we don't pray to the icon, we pray to what the icon represents. When an icon poses as the truth itself, it becomes an idol, but when an icon is a stand in for the truth, it remains an icon.
This represents the core issue issue behind the idolaters and the ritualists and why they poison their followers.
Whilst a minority wont have an issue and will only use these material goods as nothing more than tools for the majority attaching so much respect to these pictures and other goods
A. Lulls people into a false belief that abiding by the ritual = good person. - because hey its much easier to dress nicely once a week, confess or fast every now and again than that actually live a life of love and devotion like Christ did. To use your locket devotion, its easier to kiss a golden locket to show your "love" than it is to actually visit and call your mother regularly.
B. Leads to people overvaluing material goods and the toxic mindsets that follow. Hence the need for more decadent symbols even though the most simple one will suffice, hence why such great effort is put into constructing grand churches and cathedrals and why ever fancier crucifixes are made despite how supurfulous it all is. It is also why people attach so much emotional value to material to the point that their destruction is deeply upsetting to them despite how easy they are to replace. Heck idolators literally ascribe miracles to these things.
>>478377
Werent they literate though? Doesnt that count as educated in those times?
>>478396
Christ had made disciples very dear to his heart of both sexes, yet he only had male Apostles.
>>478403
Why does Christianity best display the concept of gratitude and obligation over other faiths?
Also have you read Stirner?
>>478408
>Christ had made disciples very dear to his heart of both sexes, yet he only had male Apostles.
What of the fact that culturally women would not be allowed to leave their families and take on the role of a disciple?
Christ never wrote any books by your reasoning should we likewise just rely on the spoken word?
>>478406
The Orthodox don't just have icons at Church, we have them in our homes and our prayer corner especially. They are constant reminders of who we are. This is also why Orthodox Christians all wear crosses, and routinely make the Sign of the Cross. This is why rather than the Rosary (though there is nothing wrong with using Rosaries, and Orthodox Prayer Ropes are similar to them, but with one prayer), we tend to employ the Jesus Prayer, one of constant repetition.
>Leads to people overvaluing material goods
First of all, understand that we do not dislike the material. We love the material, God created the material for us. The fall lead the spiritual and the material being pulled apart, but our job is to harmonize them, not to say the material is evil or undesirable. We worship with all five senses, we embrace the material. In our regular sign of the cross, in our kissing, and bowing, we worship with touch. We listen and worship with our ears. Our taste worships in the communion. Our noses worships with the incense. And of course our eyes worship with the beauty and the icons.
>Hence the need for more decadent symbols
But our symbols AREN'T decadent. Notice that we don't use statues and our art is all two-dimensional and simplistic? Notice that we don't use instruments in our liturgical music?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noetoc2W4Pc
>>478433
I observe this thread and the others for a while now and I'm curious. What is the Orthodox Stance on tripfaggotry and attentionwhoring?
>>478414
I think Christianity loves the material and is grateful for it more than other faiths.
I have read Max Stirner. In fact, I think the major flaw in Stirner (besides the fact that, following his logic, the "I" is spook), is that he cannot seem to comprehend gratitude as something sincere.
>>478440
Depends on context. Monks, for example, are supposed to be anonymous in their authorship of icons.
>>478443
>I think Christianity loves the material and is grateful for it more than other faiths.
Interesting what are faiths like Islam and Taoism like that?
>I have read Max Stirner. In fact, I think the major flaw in Stirner (besides the fact that, following his logic, the "I" is spook), is that he cannot seem to comprehend gratitude as something sincere.
How can the I be a spook; How can you subjugate yourself to yourself?
>), is that he cannot seem to comprehend gratitude as something sincere.
What part gave you that idea?
Are you not pursuing Orthodoxy for the sake of yourself?
>>478455
>Interesting what are faiths like Islam and Taoism like that?
I see Islam's iconoclasm as nihilistic, and I am more drawn to Christianity idea of love and truth as synonymous.
Don't know enough about Taoism to comment.
>How can the I be a spook; How can you subjugate yourself to yourself?
Whatever "you" are, the idea of individuality is subjugating it to a preconceived notion of what "I" am. Just like saying you were ten "I" instead of just one, would be subjugating yourself to that.
>What part gave you that idea?
Because gratitude involves a sense of obligation.
>Are you not pursuing Orthodoxy for the sake of yourself?
Yes, but myself in Orthodox terms is very different from myself in Stirner's terms.
>>478433
>The Orthodox don't just have icons at Church, we have them in our homes and our prayer corner especially. They are constant reminders of who we are. This is also why Orthodox Christians all wear crosses, and routinely make the Sign of the Cross. This is why rather than the Rosary (though there is nothing wrong with using Rosaries, and Orthodox Prayer Ropes are similar to them, but with one prayer), we tend to employ the Jesus Prayer, one of constant repetition.
Yes repetition and ritual rather than actual practice.
>First of all, understand that we do not dislike the material. We love the material, God created the material for us. The fall lead the spiritual and the material being pulled apart, but our job is to harmonize them, not to say the material is evil or undesirable. We worship with all five senses, we embrace the material. In our regular sign of the cross, in our kissing, and bowing, we worship with touch. We listen and worship with our ears. Our taste worships in the communion. Our noses worships with the incense. And of course our eyes worship with the beauty and the icons.
Material goods =/= material world
>But our symbols AREN'T decadent. Notice that we don't use statues and our art is all two-dimensional and simplistic? Notice that we don't use instruments in our liturgical music?
"We build massive Cathedrals like the Hagia Sophia or St basisls, our clergy wears large and intricate Crucifixes made of gold and precious metals, we gilt our icons in gold but hey we dont use musical instruments or build statues so we are totally not decedent."
Its akin to saying that the Rapper with diamonds in his grill isnt decedent because he wears a plain white shirt and has a nokia phone.
>>478465
>I see Islam's iconoclasm as nihilistic,
How is it nihilistic? Arent nihilists just Nietzsche types?
>Don't know enough about Taoism to comment.
Why would you adopt a religion so early on if you had a truth as part of your founding motivation?
>Whatever "you" are, the idea of individuality is subjugating it to a preconceived notion of what "I" am. Just like saying you were ten "I" instead of just one, would be subjugating yourself to that.
Where is the actual subjugation here though? Stirner explicitly states that his kind of freedom is about being bound by your previous values or concepts.
>Because gratitude involves a sense of obligation.
It can and it cannot thats the whole point of Stirner. For some people they express gratitude because it makes them happy for others it is guilt.
>Yes, but myself in Orthodox terms is very different from myself in Stirner's terms.
How?
>>478476
>Yes repetition and ritual rather than actual practice.
I think someone who repeats the Jesus Prayer all the time, is going see a remarkable improvement in how they practice Christianity.
Take a look at this
desertfathersDOTwebsDOTcom Click on "The Way of the Pilgrim"
>Material goods =/= material world
What is wrong with material goods? They're wonderful, God's gift to us. I'm thankful for them, and I think combining them with the spiritual is beautiful.
Don't let your rightful distaste for greed, make you hate beauty material things.
I'm not sure why you dislike massive cathedrals. They're massive because they have to accommodate a lot of people.
Why do you hate gold, anyway? Do you think gold is a shameful thing to make a cross out of? Do you think gold and jewels are of the devil? They aren't, they're beautiful gifts from God. And what better way to use to use them, than you make crosses out of them?
>>478494
>How is it nihilistic? Arent nihilists just Nietzsche types?
Pretty sure they were the opposite. Nietzsche is like what Orthodox Christianity would be if it were atheist, that's why he and Dostoevsky are so similar.
This is nihilism: https://www.marxists.org/subject/anarchism/nechayev/catechism.htm
>Why would you adopt a religion so early on if you had a truth as part of your founding motivation?
Existentialist truth, not rationalist truth. Existentialist truth in this case being love.
>Where is the actual subjugation here though? Stirner explicitly states that his kind of freedom is about being bound by your previous values or concepts.
Stirner binds himself to the idea that he is unified I, instead a mere component of something else (a family, for instance), or that he is in fact several I's. He does everything for himself, eh? Which "himself"? Is not man a collection of desires, hopes, dreams, hates, loves in constant conflict and struggle and war with each other? Stirner's actions might serve one, but at the expense of all the rest, some not even conscious.
>For some people they express gratitude because it makes them happy
For Stirner, obligation does not exist whether or not it makes you happy.
>How?
Stirner conceives of the self in purely materialist terms.
>>478497
>I think someone who repeats the Jesus Prayer all the time, is going see a remarkable improvement in how they practice Christianity.
Or it just becomes a mechanical ritual people do without thinking like students forced to do so at religious schools.
>What is wrong with material goods? They're wonderful, God's gift to us. I'm thankful for them, and I think combining them with the spiritual is beautiful.
Don't let your rightful distaste for greed, make you hate beauty material things.
I'm not sure why you dislike massive cathedrals. They're massive because they have to accommodate a lot of people.
>Why do you hate gold, anyway? Do you think gold is a shameful thing to make a cross out of? Do you think gold and jewels are of the devil? They aren't, they're beautiful gifts from God. And what better way to use to use them, than you make crosses out of them?
Nice changing the subject there when it doesnt suit you. Because only someone who thinks "gold and jewels are the devil" or "hates gold" could possibly disagree with you.
Likewise its laughable to suggest that they only built cathedrals to accommodate more parishioners.
You still haven't explained why having all these things is not decadent whilst having musical instruments and statutes is.
>>478512
>Pretty sure they were the opposite. Nietzsche is like what Orthodox Christianity would be if it were atheist, that's why he and Dostoevsky are so similar.
Isnt Nihilism just believing in no objective purpose in life?
>This is nihilism: https://www.marxists.org/subject/anarchism/nechayev/catechism.htm
That seems like the opposite of Islam.
>Existentialist truth, not rationalist truth. Existentialist truth in this case being love.
What is existentialist truth?
>Stirner binds himself to the idea that he is unified I, instead a mere component of something else (a family, for instance), or that he is in fact several I's. He does everything for himself, eh? Which "himself"? Is not man a collection of desires, hopes, dreams, hates, loves in constant conflict and struggle and war with each other? Stirner's actions might serve one, but at the expense of all the rest, some not even conscious.
Those are just things that flow from the everchaning self rather than preceding it.
>For Stirner, obligation does not exist whether or not it makes you happy.
His point is obligation being a necessary component of gratitude is something that is only present for the spooked person. You can have gratitude without obligation but not if you are spooked.
>Stirner conceives of the self in purely materialist terms
ok
>>478528
>Or it just becomes a mechanical ritual people do without thinking like students forced to do so at religious schools.
The NT says don't engage in vain repetitions, but it also says to "pray without ceasing", which is what the Way of the Pilgrim is about, and that is why I urge you to take a look at it.
>Likewise its laughable to suggest that they only built cathedrals to accommodate more parishioners.
That is certainly why the cathedrals are large. When you build a church to accommodate fewer parishioners, it's going to be smaller.
>
You still haven't explained why having all these things is not decadent whilst having musical instruments and statutes is.
I don't really thing musical instruments and statues are decadent, I just think statutes as iconography can become idols because they are too much of an effort to replicate as opposed to represent, and musical instruments aren't part of Christian hymnal tradition.
As for saying gold and such is decadent, well then you'll have to explain why the Temple in Jerusalem was adorned with so much gold if it was a bad thing.
>>478546
>Isnt Nihilism just believing in no objective purpose in life?
The kind of nihilism I'm talking about (and Nietzsche was as well) is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilist_movement
>That seems like the opposite of Islam.
It is more nihilistic than Islam, yes, because it is extremist iconoclasm, it is iconoclasm as an all-consuming worldview.
>What is existentialist truth?
See Notes from Underground or Kierkegaard or Nietzsche.
>Those are just things that flow from the everchaning self rather than preceding it.
Who is to say there is only one self?
>You can have gratitude without obligation
I disagree, I think gratitude must spring directly from a feeling of intense obligation. Otherwise, how is it different from regular goodwill?
>>478564
>musical instruments aren't part of Christian hymnal tradition.
This, by the way, doesn't mean musical instruments are always nontraditional in worship. For instance, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church uses them, because their tradition dates back to before Christ, and Jewish worship there used musical instruments, so it just carried over. But they don't use modernist musical accompaniment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqHzyTCG0tg
>>478579
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilist_movement
That seems like it has nothing to do with Islam.
>.It is more nihilistic than Islam, yes, because it is extremist iconoclasm, it is iconoclasm as an all-consuming worldview.
But why is iconoclasm and Islam nihilist in the first place at all?
>See Notes from Underground or Kierkegaard or Nietzsche.
Can you give me the short of it?
>I disagree, I think gratitude must spring directly from a feeling of intense obligation. Otherwise, how is it different from regular goodwill?
Because it is goodwill provoked by the external actions of others rather than ones regular conduct.
>>478564
>The NT says don't engage in vain repetitions, but it also says to "pray without ceasing", which is what the Way of the Pilgrim is about, and that is why I urge you to take a look at it.
Which is something that has to be genuine and from the heart not a repetition which you argue for.
>That is certainly why the cathedrals are large. When you build a church to accommodate fewer parishioners, it's going to be smaller.
The disprationate size of them and their adornments such as high ceilings and spires suggests otherwise.
>I don't really thing musical instruments and statues are decadent, I just think statutes as iconography can become idols because they are too much of an effort to replicate as opposed to represent, and musical instruments aren't part of Christian hymnal tradition.
According you they are decadent
"But our symbols AREN'T decadent. Notice that we don't use statues and our art is all two-dimensional and simplistic? Notice that we don't use instruments in our liturgical music?"
>As for saying gold and such is decadent, well then you'll have to explain why the Temple in Jerusalem was adorned with so much gold if it was a bad thing.
Its the lavish and generous use of it rather than gold itself being decadent.
Decorate crosses with varieties of pyrite and quartz. You can buy them for cheap and they look just as good as gold and diamond crosses.
Unless the issue isn't actually as simple as making them look pretty. In which case, yes, it is decadence and idolatry.
>>478631
>That seems like it has nothing to do with Islam.
No as a whole, but I see as motivated as the same iconoclastic impulse which exists in Islam.
>But why is iconoclasm and Islam nihilist in the first place at all?
The impulse toward the destruction of icons is the root of nihilism.
>Can you give me the short of it?
Truth as expression of freedom, is the root of existentialism.
>Because it is goodwill provoked by the external actions of others rather than ones regular conduct.
In this case, it is goodwill provoked by a feeling of obligation to the very Being, it is a gratitude toward God for *existing*.
>>478665
>Which is something that has to be genuine and from the heart not a repetition which you argue for.
Where do I say repetition should not be from the heart?
>The disprationate size of them and their adornments such as high ceilings and spires suggests otherwise.
The Orthodox do not have spires, generally speaking, because that is very Western.
The point of the Dome is to remind us of Christ watching over us and his whole creation. Christ is always on the dome, inside the Church.
>According you they are decadent
They can be decadent, in some contexts, decadence being a "state of moral or cultural decline". For instance, I see Latin modernism as decadent, because it is a movement away from the Church's original and sacred aesthetics.
>Its the lavish and generous use of it rather than gold itself being decadent.
It's a lot less lavish than the Temple of Jerusalem (which was a stand in for the Body of Christ), WAAAAAY less lavish.
>>478701
Precious stones were used in the Temple of Jerusalem.
Coming back to spires, Oswald Spengler had this to say
>It wants to be something different from and higher than Nature. These high-pitched gables, these Baroque cupolas, spires, and pinnacles, neither are, nor desire to be, related with anything in Nature.
He contrasts this with Byzantine architecture, saying that the Church, with its heavenly dome, is a replication of the natural world, a homage to it. Spires are forever reaching to heaven, reminding us of our separation from it, but Byzantine architecture reflects a harmony of heaven and earth.
>>478737
And they had elaborate rituals for ink on a page that had a tangential relation to a tangential derivation of God's name, from a comandment about blaspheming using the name.
Islam is the same with its rules for Classical Arabic Qurans. The Ark of the Covenant was holy. A book is a book.
>>478789
Islam does not see the Quran as an icon, but as God's Word itself. That is why, even though they are accepted, there is a degree of stigma in translated version of it, because that verges on iconography.
>>478806
>Islam does not see the Quran as an icon, but as God's Word itself.
It is ink on a page that contains a record of God's word. To say otherwise is idolatry (which Islam is perfectly fine with, as long as you don't call it that. See borderline-worship of Mohammed while they claim they absolutely do not worship Mohammed. To their credit, they aren't alone, since Catholics have Mary and the saints as idols and are perfectly fine worshiping them as long as it isn't called that by name.)
Iconoclasm is a heresy, I thought this was settled literally over a thousand years ago
OP, what do you think is the political and economic system that God would want us to follow?
also op do you like star wars
>>478818
>The Quran is the literal word of God
http://www.islam-guide.com/f-preface.htm
>>478707
>No as a whole, but I see as motivated as the same iconoclastic impulse which exists in Islam.
How though anarchists seem to have a very different motivation to the Muslims reacting against pagans.
>The impulse toward the destruction of icons is the root of nihilism.
Thats a strange interpretation. Where the Christians Nihilists when they destroyed the icons of pagans? Why must the destruction of icons be only a nihilist thing.
>Truth as expression of freedom, is the root of existentialism.
cheers
>In this case, it is goodwill provoked by a feeling of obligation to the very Being, it is a gratitude toward God for *existing*.
Then you are spooked under stirners reasoning.
>>478941
yes, but how do you go about achieving that? anarchisn, communism? i presume you're not completely egalitarian since the church history is so tied up with the empire, and both are hierarchal.
>>478933
Yes, I am aware of their theological position. I just reject it, same as I would reject the theological position of a neopagan who said their worshipping of Gaia and Ceres was totally compatible with worship of the true God.
>>478963
Christian Socialism
>>478960
>How though anarchists seem to have a very different motivation to the Muslims reacting against pagans.
Anarchists are more concerned with icons like family and duty.
>Where the Christians Nihilists when they destroyed the icons of pagans?
I'd say the Christians were more concerned with idols than icons. They didn't wreck Greek art or poetry so much, but where they did, it was definitely nihilistic.
>Why must the destruction of icons be only a nihilist thing.
The kind of nihilism we're talking about, the kind Nietzsche Dostoevsky railed against, was the impulse of destruction of icons (Stirnerist nihilism, for instance sought to destroy all spooks, and leave only the material).
Please take a look at this again: https://www.marxists.org/subject/anarchism/nechayev/catechism.htm
"If we do not know in time how to destroy these three absurd as well as dangerous phantoms, the individual will be inexorably lost."
-Renzo Novatore
>>478963
Love is the only way to go about achieving it.
>>478972
Christians socialism, however, is not something that can be implemented by any other impulse than love. If resentment creeps into its motivation or establishment, it will immediately cease to be Christian.
>>479006
>Anarchists are more concerned with icons like family and duty.
Wasnt Christ initially as well?
>I'd say the Christians were more concerned with idols than icons. They didn't wreck Greek art or poetry so much, but where they did, it was definitely nihilistic.
Is that a bad thing?
>The kind of nihilism we're talking about, the kind Nietzsche Dostoevsky railed against, was the impulse of destruction of icons
What was their argument against it?
>(Stirnerist nihilism, for instance sought to destroy all spooks, and leave only the material).
Thats just not true Stirners thought has no problem with symbols and ideals. Just because something is immaterial doesn't make it a spook. These things can still serve oneself in harmony with his thought.
>Please take a look at this again: https://www.marxists.org/subject/anarchism/nechayev/catechism.htm
Ive read that before, have you read any other works by anarchists? For instance Tolstoy or Kropotkin?
>>479012
Ahh the beautiful delusions of the impotent
>>479039
>Wasnt Christ initially as well?
Only insofar as they were idols.
>Is that a bad thing?
Yes, it's fucking terrible.
>What was their argument against it?
Notes from Underground is the best place to start. A Stirnerist could probably appreciate it, actually, since Stirner, unlike other nihilist, thought reason was spooky.
>Thats just not true Stirners thought has no problem with symbols and ideals. Just because something is immaterial doesn't make it a spook. These things can still serve oneself in harmony with his thought.
Stirner wanted to destroy their sacredness, at which point they cease to be icons. Just drawing a picture of Jesus, for instance, is not an icon in Orthodoxy. An icon has a very specific function to convey a very specific thing, and is consecrated.
>
Ive read that before, have you read any other works by anarchists? For instance Tolstoy or Kropotkin?
Yes, I can certainly quote Tolstoy's desire to destroy the Church, for instance, but I wouldn't say either of them were nihilists to as great of a degree as the Nihilist movement was. Just like I wouldn't say Islam is. Nihilism comes in shades, when it reaches its fever pitch, then ideologies produce radically nihilist groups (the Nihilist movement for anarchists, Daesh for Islam, Puritanism for Christianity, Cult of Reason for freethinking, etc.)
>>479043
And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
>>478422
Hey Im back can you respond to this?
>>479086
Pretty sure Christ actually commented on this
>For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
>>479077
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
>>479101
>quoting a pop-culture socialist faggot song
>unironically
>Anno Domini 2015
Imagine is like a children's nursery rhyme. It's all sunshine and rainbows and completely disregards a lot about the human condition and experience.
>>479101
What's funny is this whole outlook is derived from Christianity.
>>479110
It's derived from Neo-Platonist morality, same as most branches of Christianity.
>>479110
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XN6UNVwlRbk
>>479074
>Only insofar as they were idols.
Is it bad to destroy idols?
>Notes from Underground is the best place to start. A Stirnerist could probably appreciate it, actually, since Stirner, unlike other nihilist, thought reason was spooky.
I hate to be a bother again but can you be more specific in how it took down nihilism?
>
Stirner wanted to destroy their sacredness, at which point they cease to be icons. Just drawing a picture of Jesus, for instance, is not an icon in Orthodoxy. An icon has a very specific function to convey a very specific thing, and is consecrated.
So? you act as if Sacredness is the only non material concept that exists. Trying to domgantically reduce everything to materialism is a spook itself and not in line with Stirner.
>Yes, I can certainly quote Tolstoy's desire to destroy the Church, for instance,
Only through unleashing love and peace.
>>479116
Orthodox Christianity doesn't come from Platonism at all.
>>477786
So if I'm doing things in front of an icon (statue of Zeus), it is not idolatry, because I'm not worshiping the statue itself as an idol, but as an icon, standing in for Zeus. Am I correct?
>>479100
>Pretty sure Christ actually commented on this
Yeah but given the semi property like state of women of that time they couldnt leave their homes to follow a group of single men.
Likewise that doesnt really address the example I brought up which uses the same reasoning you do to deny women a role as priests to deny the writing of books.
Is women not being allowed to be clergy just a point of dogma that one has to accept on faith?
>>479124
It comes from Catholicism which came from the early churches which came from the philosophy and writings of educated, Hellenized Jews who came from Neo-Platonist schools of thought.
>>479123
>Is it bad to destroy idols?
No. But something which is a former idol an no longer one, it is bad to destroy.
>I hate to be a bother again but can you be more specific in how it took down nihilism?
Essentially by engaging the idea that you can fix society by just attacking its sacred cows which conflict with reason.
>Trying to domgantically reduce everything to materialism is a spook itself and not in line with Stirner.
Stirner himself said any idea of the self which isn't material, is a spook.
>Only through unleashing love and peace.
I'd say that Tolstoy's dislike of the Church is not a product of love, but of resentment.
>>479142
Look at the Catholic Church. Look at the Orthodox Church (which by the way, is identical to the Coptic Church after 1,600 years of separation).
Tell me, which one do you think more resembles the Church from 800 AD?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHZtbnaXuGk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxcOv4zPoVo
>>479165
It doesn't matter who resembled who more in 800AD. The history of the churches from 100AD to the split is much more important. And even if you dislike the idea of being a Catholic offshoot, Paul is still a Neo-Platonist.
>>479158
>No. But something which is a former idol an no longer one, it is bad to destroy.
I get you now
>Essentially by engaging the idea that you can fix society by just attacking its sacred cows which conflict with reason.
That just seems to be an attack on people who made a religion out reason or science than nihilism.
>Stirner himself said any idea of the self which isn't material, is a spook.
Do you have a quote of where he states that?
>I'd say that Tolstoy's dislike of the Church is not a product of love, but of resentment.
Why?
>>479179
Paul was a Christian, not a Neo-Platonist.
the Latin Church is an offshoot of Orthodox Christianity, not the other way around.
>>479198
>That just seems to be an attack on people who made a religion out reason or science than nihilism.
That is a kind of nihilism. Are you familiar with the work What Is To Be Done (the novel)?
>Do you have a quote of where he states that?
"But, if the spirit, which is not regarded as the property of the bodily ego but as the proper ego itself, is a ghost, then the Man too, who is not recognized as my quality but as the proper I, is nothing but a spook, a thought, a concept."
>Why?
Because it is a product of Tolstoy dislike of hierarchy. There's nothing loving about disliking hierarchy out of a pure dislike of hierarchy, that only comes from resentment.
>>479255
>Paul was a Christian, not a Neo-Platonist.
That's a bit like saying Fido is a greyhound, not a dog. One is a subset of the other.
>>479267
Christianity isn't a subset of Neo Platonism, not remotely. Gnosticism is Neo Platonist Christianity (and not actually Christianity, since they don't think Jesus was the Christ).
>>479255
>That is a kind of nihilism. Are you familiar with the work What Is To Be Done (the novel)?
Isnt that just about socialism in Russia?
>"But, if the spirit, which is not regarded as the property of the bodily ego but as the proper ego itself, is a ghost, then the Man too, who is not recognized as my quality but as the proper I, is nothing but a spook, a thought, a concept."
Isnt that more about abstract concepts associated with spirits being proceded and created by the ego and not being the thing itself moreso than the everything having to be material?
>Because it is a product of Tolstoy dislike of hierarchy. There's nothing loving about disliking hierarchy out of a pure dislike of hierarchy, that only comes from resentment.
Could it not be because hierarchy stifles love?
>>479392
>Isnt that just about socialism in Russia?
What do you think the Nihilist movement was about?
>Isnt that more about abstract concepts associated with spirits being proceded and created by the ego and not being the thing itself moreso than the everything having to be material?
Key phrase here is "bodily ego". Therefore Stirner rejects spirit as the ego proper, but only acknowledges it as the property of the "bodily ego", which he regards as the ego proper.
>Could it not be because hierarchy stifles love?
Hierarchy which is a product of love hardly stifles it.
>>479400
>Key phrase here is "bodily ego". Therefore Stirner rejects spirit as the ego proper, but only acknowledges it as the property of the "bodily ego", which he regards as the ego proper.
The fact that idealism and the like can stem from the bodily ego doesn't mean he rejects them all outright, he only rejects the idea of their primacy.
>>479400
>Hierarchy which is a product of love hardly stifles it.
Well perhaps the Church Hireachy wasnt a product of love in Russia
>>473288
The reason I denounce Orthodoxy or Christianity in general as it was one before the schism is because of the destruction of all the ancient Greek works and burning of the library of Alexandria and other such actions due to the fanaticism of devouts. That brought massive decline and stagnation in many scientific pursuits and I think did no favors to the byzantine. You could consider this rebelling against Hellenic tradition, and you preach that tradition should be maintained. I think at the very least the Byzantinium would be better off without christianity
>inb4 fedora memes
>>479505
>The fact that idealism and the like can stem from the bodily ego doesn't mean he rejects them all outright, he only rejects the idea of their primacy.
Obviously not compatible with the Orthodox conception of the self, which can endure past bodily decomposition.
>>479510
Church hierarchy is a product of the Church from the get go. Whatever argument we might discuss here, Tolstoy adamantly opposed sacraments and any kind of hierarchy, he hated veneration of saints and all of that.
>>479518
I'm pretty sure the barbarians fucked up stuff in the West far more than Christianity did, and Christian monks in the West went to great lengths to preserve books, and the Church was the ONLY institution doing so for quite some time. In the East, in the Imperial Library of Constantinople (built by a Christian emperor), countless books were preserved, and these later triggered the Renaissance when they're scholars fled to escape the first Turkish occupation.
As for the library of Alexandria, I hate to break it to you, but it was Julius Caesar who burned that. The only thing Christians did was burn a much smaller temple there much later, which according to Ammianus, had not salvaged any books from the original library.
I didn't see a general Orthodox Stupid Questions Thread, so I'll ask here. Sorry if it's in the wrong place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1n38jTmzsk
This is in a Romanian monastery.
At :39 they light what appears to be a metal flattened image of an angel, with a candlestick on each wing, and with incense below.
What is this? Thank you.
>>475820
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE1FzSC8DBs
This is beautiful.
Thank you!
>>479678
That's an icon of a seraph, which is a kind of angel generally depicted with six wings (from Isaiah's description of his vision) and no body.
The significance here is that Church is supposed to be a model of what is going on in heaven. In the book of Isaiah and Revelations, worship in heaven is described, angels are carrying incenses and singing the liturgy.
>And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand.
-Revelations 8:3-4
Also remember that in Orthodox worship, the Church is supposed to be heaven on earth, that is the reconciliation of the dimensions. That is why you see the walls and ceiling so decked out with saints, and Christ in the dome. So the angels are worshiping with us, and in this case, you see an iconogrpahic process of that.
Now, as for the candles: the flame represents God love (being in heaven and hell are the same in Orthodoxy, they are both being in God's presence, but in one the flame of his love is bliss, and in the other it is agony because they loathe God or are ashamed in his presence). When you first step into an Orthodox Church, there are bunch of candles everyone who has come in has lit, and you light yours on one of their and say a prayer: it is a symbol of bringing God's light into the world. And sending the serpah up to heaven with candles represents him carrying love to God.
>>480010
I have great cantors at my parish, so I love when they sing this during the antidoron.
There is nothing wrong with idolatry. The Pope does it all the time and he speaks for God!!
>>480565
real shame we had to lose the Pope, desu. St. Peter's See had always been a bastion of orthodoxy, but those stupid Germanics had to make him fall to Satan's Third Temptation.
>>473463
питaш гa пpeвишe. aмepикaнaц oткpиo пpaвocлaвљe, пa гa шиpи кao нeкo нoвo oткpићe мeђy зaпaдњaцимa. o пpaвocлaвљy знao кoликo и википeдијa.
>>473288
OP what is the Orthodox view on atheists/agnostics? if they die, but do not necessarily believe in God, is there any chance they may be allowed into Heaven so long as, throughout their lifetime, they generally acted benevolently toward others?
>>480676
First of all, there is no possible way they can get into heaven unless they *want*...even after they find out it exists, they might not *want to, for one reason another, maybe resentment toward God for all the earth's suffering, etc. it is always up to them..it's a choice. But beyond that, we don't know. If they are in God's Church (which they could be without us seeing it), then they would be. If they're not, then they will suffer the foretaste of hell, but they might be reconciled at the Apocatastasis (the idea that everyone would get a second chance was taught by several saints, including St. Isaac the Syrian, who was very influential on Dostoevsky).
In short, we don't know, but we think it is very Christian to hope so.
>>480713
thank you friend, ive always wondered if different types of Christianity hold different views on this but ive never known an Orthodox Christian to be able to ask. desu ive only heard a Catholic's view on it, but they werent too sure what the official view held by the Catholic Church is
>>480738
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apocatastasis
>>480744
ive never considered myself religious but that made me feel better, thank you again
>>480744
You can see under "modern advocates", Kallistos (Timothy, before he became a monk) Ware is listed. He wrote the Orthodox Church and the Orthodox Way, which are widely held to be the two go-to intros to Orthodoxy.
>>480751
Sure.
Remember that in Orthodoxy, unlike the West, hell is not a separation from God, it is exactly the same thing as heaven, it is being in God's presence and being filled the fire and light of his love. That can be either bliss, or agony (think of a young adolescent who is tormented by his parents' love, or being loved by someone you have so terribly wronged that you'd rather they hated you).
Why hasn't y2am's Bee a mahou shoujo yet?
>>480676
>>480713
>>480738
Here's Keekygard's view on it, make of it what you will
>The lowest form of offense, that which, humanly speaking, is the least guilty, is to let the whole question about Christ remain undecided and to judge in this fashion: "I do not presume to pass any judgment; I do not believe, but I pass no judgment." That this is a form of offense escapes the attention of most men. The fact is that people have clean forgotten the Christian "thou shalt." Therefore it is that they do not perceive that this is offense, this thing of treating Christ as a matter of indifference. The fact that Christ is preached to thee signifies that thou shalt have an opinion about Christ. The judgment that He is, or that He exists, or that He has existed, is the decision for the whole of existence. If Christ is preached to thee, it is offense to say, "I will have no opinion about it."
>This however must be understood with a certain qualification in these times, inasmuch as Christianity is so poorly preached as it now is. There doubtless are living thousands of men who have heard Christ preached and have never heard a word about this "shall." But he who has heard it and says, "I will have no opinion about it," is offended. For he denies the divinity of Christ when he denies that it has a right to require a man to have an opinion. It is of no avail for such a man to say, "I do not affirm anything about Christ, either yes or no"; for then one has only to ask, "Hast thou then no opinion as to whether thou shalt have an opinion about this or not?", and if he replies, "Well, yes," he has trapped himself; and if he replies, "No," then Christianity condemns him all the same, requiring that he shall have an opinion about Christianity and also about Christ, that no one shall presume to treat Christ as a curiosity.
>>479400
>Hierarchy which is a product of love hardly stifles it.
People have also murdered over love and done other unspeakable things.
>>479136
Can I get an answer on this please OP
>>481459
I'm not sure what your point is, since one is explicitly against Christianity, the other is not.
>>481473
Jesus had women following him, it was four of his female followers who discovered the empty tomb, and Mary Magdalene was very near to Christ's heart. So the point is that Jesus had female disciples following him along with the male ones, but he didn't chose any for his Apostles, not one.
>>481501
I was more interested in the part about how we could use the same reasoning to deny the production of religious literature because jesus chose not to write anything
>>481501
>I'm not sure what your point is, since one is explicitly against Christianity, the other is not.
That just because something is a product of love doesn't mean it is necesserily good or incapable of stifling love overall.
Likewise murder is certainly not explicitly against Christianity. Christianity is about loyalty and trust in God. Its for this reason why the conquest of Cannan took place and why doing so wasnt a sin.
>>481704
What does the story express? Why does it use murder to express it?
>>481829
It expresses the trials one must have to reach the promised land.
It's expressed in terms that could be understood by people at the time.
>>481866
Is the historicity of things like that and exordus not important to Orthodox? Things like that have always been a sore spot for me
>>481704
>But the OT was written down, so....
Your rejection of women in the clergy is based on Jesus own choices, the OT being written down wasnt a choice of this.
>Is women not being allowed to be clergy just a point of dogma that one has to accept on faith?
>>481961
Not really.
>>481971
>the OT being written down wasnt a choice of this.
Yes, it was.
>Is women not being allowed to be clergy just a point of dogma that one has to accept on faith?
It's seen as part of the God the Father. God has no sex, but it's still an icon of his relation to us. Just like the Holy Spirit isn't a dove, but the dove is used as an icon of him.
All dogma has to be accepted on faith. It cannot ever be altered. The Orthodox Church is not concerned with adding to dogma, like the Roman Catholic Church, or in taking away from dogma, like Protestants, but solely in preserving it.
>>482096
>Not really
How come? If those events are true how can any of the covenants or prophecies have any meaning?
>>482110
What do you mean? These events are generally seen as prophecies themselves, literal or not. The Passover lamb is equated with Christ, Egypt is equated to our enslavement to sin, passing over the Red Sea to baptism, the promised land to heaven. Even the NT says this.
>>482127
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U-rBZREQMw
>>480543
Thank you. There's much to learn.
>>482305
No problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feu2owd0MsY
>>473288
Is Constantinople important to the Orthodox today?
>>482393
About as important as the Vatican is to Catholics.
>>482127
If they are just all allegories then why all the obsession with genealogies?
>>482987
They might have been real people, but there's a wide chasm between that and saying the stories are documentaries.
>>475891
If you think this kind of rhetoric is esteem-destroying, you're a faggot with no valuable self-esteem anyway.
But if you're so afraid of humbling yourself before god and want to be a conservative theist so bad, you'll fit right in with reconstructionist 14/88 neopagans. I'm sure you'll find someone with a matching neckbeard among them. too.
>>483162
You can't call someone a faggot for not being humble...it doesn't work that way. Calling someone a faggot, unironically, is anything but humble.
>>483039
So does that mean that other myths for other religions are legitimate then?
