|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Protestantism
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
Hey, I gave up on page four.
--------------------
[Nino points a gun at Chiki]
Nino: Now... tell me. Who started the war?
Chiki: [long pause] We did.
~No Man's Land
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I can hear myself think again.
Thank you for your contribution MT - for those of us on the outside, it's easy to get misled into thinking an er.... shall we say, strongly expressed view is normative for a particular tradition or group.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Sophia's Questions,
snip Kallistos Ware's statement re original sin provides us with a good model for what sin is. It did not change my own understanding as I demonstrated from "the centre of SIN is I". I think your criticism was nit-picking.
Forgive me, brother – you were beyond me on this one, I thought you posted his comment in RE to an earlier discussion on original sin (as a damning burden). I see what you are saying now, that in his description of the first (or original) sin he does indeed get to the heart of sin.
quote:
I think your responses demonstrate that you simply have a problem with the diversity and variation which is an inevitable feature of the 2,000 year history of the church. My approach is a recognition that we all came from the same root and to look for common ground.
Others, if we are honest, would likely also have a problem with it, given their constant harping about heresy and truth, many of them wrote the letters in the Bible.
Yes, splintering, diversity of belief, practice, and opinion were all to be expected and the Bible predicted them and warned against them repeatedly. I see you get to the meat of this below so I will wait.
quote:
snip
I acknowledge my indebtedness to the teaching of the Apostles. But they are not the source of Ultimate Truth. Let me capitalise for clarity. They knew Him, they loved Him, and they point to Him. That is what I believe about Ultimate Truth. What you appear to believe is that our access to that Ultimate Truth must be the way you say. Respectfully, I disagree. I know Jesus is more accessible than you think. I would not be surprised if he is more accessible than I think.
This really isn't about Christ's accessibility, I have said repeatedly that people find Christ if they want to, and they see His love, literally, whenever they see love.
This is not first about accessibility, it is about expectations, and meeting them. And we are told that in the meeting of them, we can ultimately find access heretofore unknown to us; a person can even - and neither you nor I have ever met such a person- while still captive in this hard, physical world, find perfect love of God, casting out all fear. Fear of every earthly thing, and fear of our Maker, having long ago abandoned any vestige of that fear which is for all earnest Christians, “the beginning of wisdom.” A state of theosis in which one no longer fears even hell (separation from the Creator) because the mutual love that is shared is so deep and constant that they can never imagine being apart from it.
This is the earthly state to which we are all called, and reaching it means walking a road open to every person.
I think we may have hit a brick wall on this. I'll send you a brief email with a suggestion of a way out of this dead end. That is what it is, for the two notions of Truth cannot be reconciled, one is fixed and defined, the other evolving and interpretive. (I don't mean your personal theology, but the varied, changing, and ever new ones in the world outside of Orthodoxy.)
quote:
This old prayer against presumption, not one that I normally use (my local church is not very liturgical) probably expresses my feelings following this dialogue.
The prayer of humble access
I read the prayer, it is a good one. I am not sure what context it has here, except insofar as presumption in general is concerned. I took it at first to mean that you approach Christ's table with greater humility than ever. I can't think you mean to say that I am presenting a case that I, or other Orthodox (those earnestly trying to follow Christ, at least) think ourselves righteous, or more righteous than anyone else. It is an unavoidable axiom that the more righteous one actually becomes, the less righteous one sees themselves as being.
Our conviction is not based upon our own reason, it is based upon the fact of the ageless, changeless Church. That is what I am defending, not anything that I can begin to feel prideful about, I am blessed by the much greater efforts of our forefathers. As a (I hope) rational person, I can't see feeling righteous or prideful about something for which we can take no credit.
If my spiritual father reads any of this and corrects my understanding of something, I will humbly submit, and endeavor to understand more, lest I lead someone astray in their search for Truth. My only feelings will be embarrassment for inaccurately representing the Church, and prayer that it does not lead to any mischief. If that happens I will put up a post about it.
I'm a convert to Orthodoxy from protestantism, so I, too, made a choice about theology and a life in Christ in a church, but in so doing it was a choice to submit. If Truth – in the only way it matters to us, theology and salvation – does not change, then our arguments about it are futile – they don't change it, and we are still bound by it. So why argue about it? That is time wasted that could be spent working out our salvation with fear and trembling (do we tremble in the face of relative truth?) or trying to bring others to an understanding of the unchanging Truth. In so doing, we can use whatever powers of reason and communication we have, God willing, to do effectively what we were charged to do among our fellow children.
The only presumption we make is that St. Paul's Church was indeed guided by the Holy Spirit and still exists in a meaningful way: in continuity of belief.
If there is no continuity of belief somewhere going back to the Apostles, then Truth is small t truth, arguable and relative. For if it changed, what is right? We can use reason and a feeling of guidance from above, but that path is varied and often twisting, so cannot be Truth in any meaningful sense of the word if Truth is in any way specific.
That one might presume Truth and expectations to not be specific (as in the evolving 'understandings' of sin) seems to me the very height of presumption, particularly in light of the Bible's repeated reference to it as something to be safeguarded. How does one safeguard relative truth?
Orthodoxy is not a stifling faith. The only freedom you have in the faith that I do not have is in deciding what to believe about it. Though I don't have that freedom, because my study is of an understood and beautifully communicated meaning that is not changing, it is possible that I will come to a deeper understanding of the theology and the fundamental aspects of the Christian life than will someone who has to search out each truth for themselves before getting down to understanding it in a meaningful way. Even if one accepts a particular church's dogma lock, stock, and barrel, their ultimate understanding then changes with the Church's understanding, which, to begin with, may or may not be the Truth. How can we be sure with any certainty? (I'm not talking about different understandings of various verses, but basic things such as the foundational Christian virtues. What are they? What do they have to do with our salvation, with becoming more like our Maker? How can we cultivate them in our lives?)
This one may be at an end. If so, it was my great pleasure communicating with you. I wish you all the best, and hope to see you again. If you do want to reply to any of the above I would welcome it.
SQ
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
I'll send you a brief email with a suggestion of a way out of this dead end.
So there's a brief, pithy, two or three liner that will sort all this out but you've left it out of the 30 or so multiple paragraph posts above?
Amazing.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
So it's the Orthodox theology that has been unchanged? I think there is much evidence to suggest that theology has not remained static (otherwise there would have been no theologians since 100AD). Or is your point that Orthodox theology has been developed on some sort of firm basis, with the Holy Spirit guarding against heresy along the way?
Hi Quantpole (love to hear the derivation of that),
What I mean is a consistent understanding. Just as we have disagreements today about Christ's message, they have always existed. Those beliefs were examined, if one believes the writers did what they said they intended to do, in light of what has always been understood by the authority of the Church. Just as St. Paul referred to the Church as the guardian of Truth, so did St. Iraeneus in his treatise from 175, "Against
Heresies". In these and in the writings of all of the fathers of the Church of which I am aware, there is constant admonition to follow the Church in it's submission to 'the ancients', or what was believed, 'in antiquity'.
So there is good evidence that from the beginning there was an understanding of Christ's message and meaning that was safeguarded with fervor.
AISB, once it became possible, the faith was universalized, in belief and practice. This was most clearly evident in the 4th century adoptions of the Creed and the Divine Liturgy.
At some point, unless there is no fixed truth around which we can rally, it had to be encapsulated. It was done in the only way that makes any sense, through a universal council of bishops, the representatives of all the Christian communities on the planet. Since then (381 to put a date on it, the adoption of the Nicean/Contantinplitan Creed), I can find no evidence of a change in Church theology, and I have looked in great earnest.
Orthodox are willing apologists for the faith, and will often reference objections raised by other faiths. I've read a lot of apologetics on the Church's faithful and consistent understanding of the Apostolic faith, and I have never read one which says anything to the effect, "_________ will argue that the OC changed it's beliefs about______, but.....".
SQ
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
SQ
Thanks for most of that. I wasn't getting at you - the problem is that you were getting to me. The prayer reminds me that the temptation to be self righteous is always present in me.
It does appear from your posts that you have a blind spot. I do not have the freedom you think I have, simply because I am a protestant. I am a man under authority. Which authority is under Divine Authority. We simply disagree about the legitimacy of the authority I am under, and its understanding of the Divine Authority which it is under. You are free to question those legitimacies. To lump all protestants together as individualised consumers of the beliefs of their choices is offensive. You are pre-judging us. It is a very short journey from pre-judgement to prejudice.
I really must stop this until you show some signs of seeing the point that I and several others have made. ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
I guess this hinges on the nature of Apostolic truth, which all Christian churches seek. If it varies, then your folks are right to be Baptists because they think it's right. If the truth varies, they are just as right as anyone else who is a member of a different church with different beliefs, because there is no "right" and "wrong"
then posted by Russ:
quote:
Run that by me again ?
You're saying that someone who believes the proposition "God wants me to be a Baptist", or "the teachings of the Baptist church are true", can only be morally right to act on that belief if there is no such thing as right and wrong anyway ?
The logic of that proposition is not immediately apparent.
The question "how do you believe that people should act if they don't share your belief system ?" seems to admit of two possible answers.
One along the lines of "they should acquire my belief-system as soon as possible".
And one along the lines of "they should follow such partial and imperfect light as God has granted them, and seek for more", or in other words "they should do what they believe to be right but at the same time give due regard to the possibility that they might be wrong."
Seems to me that if two people hold different religious views (and I suggest that it is an easily observable fact that people do hold different religious views), then for them each to go around saying to each other "you must acquire my belief-system as soon as possible" is not very constructive. Which leads me to prefer the other answer.
Hi Russ (old salt!),
Well put, and entirely the right (not to mention charitable and humble view) to have, again, if Apostolic Truth has not been preserved. If their understanding of our salvation has been preserved, why is that not the Truth around which we should rally?
As an old salt who has probably heard this general argument before, have you heard someone say something that leads you to believe the OC has changed it's understanding at some point, once affirmed in universality by the first Ecumenical Council?
I agree with what you say if one is trying to convince someone that their personal understanding of Scripture or the faith, or one of any number of denominations has the answers. My argument is about a Truth that goes beyond denominations, it, and the Church, are 'pre-denominational'. And it's not mine, or Luther's, or Calvin's understanding, it is an understanding based upon remarkable consistency and valor in defense of Truth against untruth, maintained in a 'pre-denominational' form for at least 673 years in world-wide Christian universality: from 381 to 1054, the year of the birth of the first denomination.
quote:
I'm not a Baptist. But I can respect and look up to those who try both to be good Baptists and to be open to the possibility that they might be wrong.
Without indulging in any subjectivism about "truth varying".
In what way, if you can to explain it, because I haven't heard an explanation yet,
1.Can something be said to be true if it is one belief among many about that thing? (Except in a personal sense, and do we find Truth in our person?)
2.Does anything in your reading of the Bible or any other sources from early Christianity lead you to believe that they thought Truth evolves and differs? Our understanding of it may be made more perfect with wisdom and beautiful exposition about it, but can you provide an example of anyone writing in the first 1000 years of Christianity who says the Truth about salvation evolves or differs from person to person? (People can choose to have differing beliefs, but we are all captives of Truth if it exists.)
Enough worm can opening.
Best wishes,
SQ
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by whitelaughter:
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Until 1054, all Christians on the planet were Orthodox, so for more than half of the history of the faith, it was the universal church of all Christians.
Oh, come on! Surely you've heard of at least one of: the Nestorians, Thomasites, Armenians, Syriacs, Copts, the Ethiopian church, the Celtic church, (plus whatever the guys in Cyrenaica called themselves, ditto the Sudan). And those are just the independent churches I can think of off hand.
You're right! Since I am not willing to say that any person doing their best to follow Christ is not a Christian, I of course extend the same sentiment to Copts, Celts, etc. In my zealousness to defend the universality of the Church I frankly forgot about them.
All will say exactly what they must say in order to believe, themselves, that they are the Apostolic Church. But they can have no claim to any 'catholicity'.
Even after great internal struggles such as the ones that triggered the ecumenical councils, many of those who had promoted the heresy reconciled themselves to the Church. And though these other groups existed, it was the OC that was nearly universal, from Kamchatka to Normandy.
Thanks for calling me on this, I'll remember it.
SQ
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Dear Sophia's Questions,
I'm not sure how to make this any clearer.
I do not believe in relativism of truth, and am resolutely not post-modern in approach. (Even if this is based on a faulty understanding of what post-modernism is about, Psyduck).
Hi Midjohn - I sincerely believe that you believe to the core of your being that what you are saying is accurate, and that you earnestly believe that what you believe is true, the fullness of Truth as you can understand it at present. That is differnt from a fullness of understanding about our relation to God and our salvation. That fullness, if it exists, would represent a higher order of truth, not limited by what each of us accepts or comprehends, it is not limited in any regard, it's source is the Creator of all, and it is the one thing that is true in and of itself, not contingent upon anything.
That you have a desire to know Truth is the foundation for salvation, because that is the one truth that eventually becomes front and center in the mind of any believer. But if you are willing to admit that there are various, valid truths, you aren't yet looking for Ultimate Truth. By 'valid', as I've said repeatedly, I don't mean of no value, only 'valid' in comparison with the fullness of Truth about salvation.
What other important things about our own lives do we not want to know the full truth about?
I've answered a number of posts about the nature of Truth, and I'm at a loss of what to add that won't be tedious in this format. But perhaps you might find compelling or convincing something in another format. So I have posted an essay about this question of Truth, the first few pages concern it's nature directly. I hope you will check it out, it's titled, The Ultimate Truth
I hope you'll look at it and let me know if it makes any sense to you.
SQ
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
What's your point, ken? That institutions evolve? Duh. Who would deny that? But the Reformation wasn't a natural evolution, it was (in many instances) a clean break with the past. The two don't really compare.
Er...you can't evolve and not change. SQ's contention appears to be that the EOC is unchanged from that of the 1st century
We've already covered this. SQ's contention is untenable and I don't share it. See above.
Mousethief - Does anything aI wrote in the posts above clarify what I am contending? If not, what part of what I am saying is inaccurate?
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
SQ, it seems you've shifted positions. Before, I thought you were saying Protestants did not have a regard for truth; but were deciding on the basis of what seemed best for them, or seemed to suit them.
Now you admit I might be in honest error. (Progress of a sort.)
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
I believe you have misread my previous posts. I am not incredibly emotional about this topic--in fact I find a lot about Orthodoxy to be fascinatingly illuminating. I am emotional about the way you believe yourself to have the Ultimate Truth. That kind of attitude makes me physically ill.
Digory,
I don't 'believe myself” to have the Truth, for one, my understanding of it is limited. For another, it is not 'mine' except to the extent that I have decided to submit to it.
How conceited would any person be if they referred to something they came up with themselves as Truth with a capital T? I have never done so, your misinterpretation is in spite of much that I have said to the contrary. I don't have pride bound up in this, nor honor, the Church is mine to defend but not by any virtue of my own. The source of Truth is beyond me. And believing 'that' it is true does me little good, I have to humbly follow it if any spiritual transformation is to occur. If you still think that I am coming from a position of pride, please tell me why you believe that, in light of what I said above.
If you don't think that the source of my conviction is pride, in what other instances does non-prideful defense of something greater than oneself make you ill?
If you can't think of any, why in this case?
I've faithfully answered every question and comment you have sent my way, I'd like these answered, please.
quote:
I don't have any intention to "call you to Hell"--it's not my way. I enjoy the discussion, but whether or not you intend it, you patronize everyone who disagrees with you when you proclaim to them that they are obviously and clearly wrong.
I don't know how I have failed, in spite of repeated attempts, to make this clear: To the extent that anyone is 'wrong', it is in saying that their church, one among many different ones that have no continuous claim to Apostolic Truth, does in fact understand it in its fullness. The question then becomes, 'on what basis do you make that claim?' With the OC we find a serious claim to having preserved that understanding.
To the extent that any Christian believes and lives anything conducive to their salvation, that is to their obvious benefit and to the glory of God, so cannot be 'wrong'.
But simply put, as in anything important that affects us profoundly, we should want to know the full truth about it, as best we are able, and if someone does not examine this - by all appearances legitimate, historically established claim - to the Truth, about that which they say is at the foundation of their life, they are chiefly motivated by something other than a desire to know the Apostolic understanding. I cannot fathom why that would be the case for any Christian.
Originally posted by SQ
quote:
...it is possible that Christ did not work miracles, it may have been a joint fabrication on the part of the Jews and 'Christians' – that is what many post-modernist non-Christians believe, saying that the Bible is a fabrication. Many early works of other Church fathers exist, and they are recognized as authentic by the same people who determined which of the letters attributed to NT writers were legitimate and would be included in the Bible. And they testify to a consistency in the understanding of Christian theology and living.
That is the history of it. To believe otherwise is literally to believe in a conspiracy encompassing all of Christianity, for there is no record of it. Even Christianity's opponents are silent about the conspiracy. It's a fantastic idea that defies belief.
quote:
This makes no sense. Throwing out a long-winded response filled with platitudes, confidently-stated "truths," and gibberish won't make people concede your point.
It makes perfect sense. When you say something “makes no sense” at least take a second to say why.
There exists no other history of things, so to deny what history exists (which is fairly extensive) requires one to believe that the history they are reading is a lie. The works that all talk about defending a Truth, as understood to be embodied and defended by a Church identified by St. Paul in 66, St. Clement in 96, St. Iraneus in 175 and all the rest, have to have been willfully fabricated, and the alternative histories destroyed, in order to deny the abundant written testimnony.
Did the Church come off it's apostolic moorings? If so, the history of it is buried, lost to us compleltely. If it in fact happend, if they started spinning our new theologies and understandings, how is that possible that no evidence of it exists?
Don't say that I keep making that claim, get in your chair and look it up. I provided some links that support what I am saying and links to google searches which showed that no one is saying the contrary, on this post, at the top.
Originally SQ
quote:
There is no guide to compare it to, the EOC understanding is the same understanding as the early Church, so it is the guide.
quote:
And here we all can plainly see it. The EOC's theology and major tenets of belief have not changed since the earliest church. How do we know what the earliest church believed? By looking at the Orthodox church, of course.
It's so obvious now.
Your mockery wounds you. What other sources are there? Tell me the names of the documents to which we should all look to learn about the Apostolic church, outside the Bible. The Bible only tells us about a short period of it, and doesn't come close to telling us all that the Apostles were told and believed about the contents of the NT. Are there none that are legitimate because they are all Orthodox? Should we rely instead on the writings of the Nestorians to find an understanding of salvation? What does one do when one reads the writings of the fathers of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, and finds that they have great unanimity, which persists in the Church's understanding?
The only reliable guide to the Apostolic tradiion is the OC. If you don't think continuity and consistency = reliability, in what other cases is this not true with regard to any knowledge, once it is known?
Why would the fact that the understanding is fixed and constant repel anyone? Does that not speak to it's authenticity, and sufficiency? You can find elements of Apostolic Truth in every Church, but it is there in Protestant Churches as a matter of discernment, a means I think less reliable than preservation.
Side question: Do you believe that the theology of Orthodox Jews could have remained unchanged for any 1700 year stretch?
quote:
(about not being communal in wealth)
Too much to demand of every believer, so they changed the belief that everyone should do it, right? But they were guided by the Holy Spirit, so that change was acceptable.
No, as I said, it is the ideal, as in monasticism. The church does not reject its value in the least, we have monasteries, we actually incorporate this belief into the life of the Church in its ABSOLUTE FULLNESS: Christian community where all live in a common vow of poverty and chastity, for life. How is this manifest in your Church? Where do those who literally desire to divorce themselves from the things of this world, as the Creator said was the ideal, go to rest their hearts full of humility and thirsting for complete obedience?
As to all Orthodox doing it it was done in some places, but not in most, (of which there exists any record) and you won't find the Fathers telling anyone they have to do this to find salvation. Since there isn't evidence that it was expected of all Christians, ever, but is instead an ideal, the Church does not expect it of all believers.
I would like to hear now how your Church incorporates this ideal into its life in the way Christ seems to have meant, and if it doesn't, why it doesn't.
It seems to me that you have taken some liberties with my motives, I'd like some answers where I requested them, if you would be so kind.
SQ
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
Originally posted by barnabas62
quote:
SQ,
It does appear from your posts that you have a blind spot. I do not have the freedom you think I have, simply because I am a protestant. I am a man under authority. Which authority is under Divine Authority. We simply disagree about the legitimacy of the authority I am under, and its understanding of the Divine Authority which it is under. You are free to question those legitimacies. To lump all protestants together as individualised consumers of the beliefs of their choices is offensive. You are pre-judging us. It is a very short journey from pre-judgement to prejudice.
Hi Barnabas,
(I will take a liberty here and say that Barnabas is on vacation, and asked me to respond to this, but likely would be off the site for a week. So if you see no response from him it's not because he's punted. He's visiting his family, for his granddaughter's first birthday! Please pray for their safe passage.)
We've come to the same conclusion about the other's view – I had reached it in the last post, if you recall, saying we had likely hit a wall. I think be both perceive that to be a blind spot in the other. Both are completely intertwined, so
wall or no wall, I think we can figure this out. It's a bit hairy and confused now, so I'm going to see first where we agree.
1.We agree that, at bottom, we all choose our faith. Me as well, I have chosen to be a Christian and Orthodox. Those who are faithful to their cradle church choose to remain so.
2.We agree that it is possible to submit oneself completely to a 'truth' of one kind or another, be it Anglican, RC, Pentacostal, Orthodox, etc. Not everyone picks and chooses what to believe about each theological issue, and in some cases accept completely what was handed down by the earlier generations in their church.
When I say that Protestants choose what to believe, in spite of the above, it is true in both a corporate and an individual way. And I don't mean in a squabbling way as in dueling Bible verses that we insist we understand correctly, but in relation to the MEANING of truth. It's NATURE – not necessarily its substance or content, but that as well by extension.
I believe complete submission to the faith as understood by the church one attends is the exception to the rule in most Protestant faiths. I know many Protestants and don't know a one who accepts, without exception, the dogmas of their church unless they give such things little thought, in which case their theology is likely to be different from their church's because it is undeveloped and they likely don't really understand what the church's beliefs are. That person is one who may love their neighbor, and go to Church regularly, and try live a humble life in Christ, but wouldn't be interested in participating in this forum. Here, we are after are the results of vigorous pursuit of Truth.
Perhaps it would be helpful if we had a common understanding of Truth. I have defined it as the Apostolic understanding of Christ's teaching.
If we are immortal and if communion with our Creator is contingent upon us acting upon Christ's message, then the knowledge of both the nature of that message and what makes it most possible for a person to adhere to it constitute the entirety of Truth, in the ultimate sense.
This, I believe, would be a pretty common Christian understanding of Truth.
All other truths aside from this are contingent, and ultimately, all others truths are irrelevant to us, because none affect us unto eternity as does this one.
Let me know if you don't agree with the above.
If one accepts that as truth, several things should be noted.
First, not trying to understand it in its fullness or not believing it exists in its fullness does not invalidate what part of it a person does understand and incorporate into their lives. A person can understand much of the Apostolic tradition and be dead in Christ. Likewise one can understand little of it and live a life governed by love, which, because of the nature of love, will be a life in accordance with God's commandments.
Second, though the above is possible, it is difficult under any circumstances, even with God's help. This is so because of our fallen nature and inclination to sin. Obedience to the will of the Father was a struggle even, at times, for the saints, St. Paul and every other one. That it is difficult is particularly true in light of the times in which we live, where enslavement to sin satiates us as never before. If someone is a slave to any of the compulsions which ensnare us – self-image, drugs, pornography, gambling, sex, food, etc. - they are living in the age of ultimate fulfillment of their compulsions and urges. (and the wire-heads are coming)
Third, if we should choose to take up the path of submission to God and self-denial, especially when self-indulgence has never been more fulfilling, we do so because we believe it is crucial to our salvation. Why else choose that difficult path?
So we set off with a common goal, and in the face of great adversity. The first step in that journey, ideally, is a consideration of the nature of the knowledge we have decided to make the center of our existence.
Not its specifics, it's nature. This is the foundation of our brick wall.
Let's consider it in a new way. Perhaps the only way to look at this objectively is from the position of an outsider, ideally one who has lived with a different religion and has decided at last to accept the reality of Christ.
Let's further consider that we are speaking of an intelligent individual who grapples with things before accepting them, and one who has decided to consider the nature of Christian truth before deciding what church to join. There are the shoes, please occupy them if you will!
Our new friend in Christ will hopefully come to the conclusion that the truth that matters is that related to her salvation, her understanding and living of it. We can be hopeful that she will conclude that the words which left Christ's lips as he explained his message to his followers, both those recorded in the Bible and the rest of what He said, which was thousands of times more (irrespective of whether this can be known to us now, I'm not headed there.)
So our friend can conclude that Ultimate Truth existed for some time, the reality of a loving Creator was proved by his revelation of His expectations of us. The fullness of his message to the Apostles is the fullness of the truth about our salvation in large part because so much of it had to be in answer to the questions, “Why, Master?” and, “How, Master?”
Our friend will hopefully find that the Apostles understanding was a union in most regards, so their common understanding, representing the understanding of our salvation, was something they could collectively defend and propagate.
Then she will hopefully study the scriptural understanding of the nature of Christian truth. If she looks for a reference to an evolving, or changing, or relative truth, she will not find it in the pages of Scripture.
What she will find are a number of things to encourage her hope that ultimate truth once existed.
1.It is repeatedly referred to in terms of a common understanding of the believers who wrote the Bible. Errant churches and theologians existed, but there was a shared notion that their errors could be known, because they could be measured against a shared understanding of Truth.
2.It is referred to in salvific terms, as the foundation of it, the very basis of faith. “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free,”
3.It is referred to as a fixed thing, a measuring stick. Consider 2nd Timothy ch. 4, and see if our friend would conclude that the truth is fixed thing, against which to compare everything:
1
I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
quick
2
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
With this foundation of understanding of truth, she will begin to look for Apostolic truth.
What will she do? If she considers it a fixed thing, as the Apostles understood it, she will look for it in that form. Let's assume she finds herself away from her native land, say in Scotland, in the 19th century. She may or may not have access to a library of sermons written by the early fathers, or access to much of the history of Christianity. But she knows that one island over, strident theological disputes exist, so obviously there is no concurrence around her about Apostolic truth, or even that it is a fixed thing. People may appear to be be personally convinced that the doctrine they accept and exhort “with all longsuffering”, as directed, is the fullness of truth, but basic humility compels them to accept that there are fundamental aspects of it which others do not accept as true, or important, or relevant to our salvation, or conducive to it.
She may decide she has no choice but to submit with faith to a church that seems to comport with.......
What? From what foundation does she make these decision, even if they are decision to submit? __There has to be a criteria, or viewpoint from which they are made__. This criteria may be what seems right to her, or she may decide to accept the word of someone she trusts and go with that. In any case, even in submission she is forced to choose between competing versions of truth, and forced to choose how to work out her salvation for herself, even if it is to trust.
She now realizes that though her search for the fullness of Apostolic Truth can continue, it will never be realized in anything like it's fullness because she simply does not have reliable access to it in fullness.
There is nothing to which she can submit in totality, she is now constantly faced with choices. Her church is one among many. Does she choose to submit, powerless to know the Truth herself, in hope that her faith will lead her through any errors or deficiencies in the life her church asks of her? Perhaps, and in so doing she has made a choice about what to believe about her salvation: that it is enough (she hopes, being humble and not presuming anything of her Maker) to submit to ____ church in humility, perhaps thinking that there is no better choice.
She may also decide to examine the church's teaching in light of her own understanding of Scripture and other reading. Even if the end she comes to through such a search and reading is something she sees only as an understanding, and possibly in error, will it guide her? That is another choice she makes. And if she decides to take the corrective route, she will be making countless choices. She may make each with fear and trembling, but they are choices nonetheless.
Even if she hopes that the Apostolic Truth still exists, she will not presume to think she has found it or can find it, if for no other reason that the world is full of people with no better claim to knowing Apostolic Truth, all insisting they know it.
Many around her will confess with humility that they really aren't sure what Apostolic Truth is, but they are sure that their ancestors were motivated by love, and so acted in faith in trying to discern what it is, in hopes of God's infinite mercy. That is the humble Protestant's condition in a nutshell, and one, given their understanding of truth as being somewhat relevant ___by virtue only of the position in which they find themselves____ in the generally protestant world they live in, where other faiths are often considered valid, and in the eyes of some Christians, equally valid. Much more so other Christian denominations. She is literally forced to choose between competing understandings of Apostolic Truth, and recognizes with humility that she will never have access to the fullness of that Ultimate Truth. She is forced to accept relative truth, and so, to choose.
This situation further confuses her search for Truth when her church changes its doctrines. In that case, if the church changes she has to choose what to do about it and what to believe about the change – they can accept it as right or question it, since days or years ago the church said something different. Again, she is forced to choose.
I believe that the above is not my interpretation of what happens in such a case, but the actuality of it. I have not boxed her into any corners, she has choices to make by virtue of situation, not because I say she has to make them. If she DOES NOT make them, she has not taken the next step in the faith, becoming part of a Christian community.
But if she lives in the age of the internet, our friend can find good reason to believe that the fullness of apostolic truth, as apparently promised in Scripture and by all of the writers of the first millenium of Christianity, repeatedly referring to their desire to preserve the Truth and its understanding.
Yes, she still makes a choice if she chooses to be baptized into the Orthodox Church, but if made in the spirit it is expected, it is a choice to submit to a greater truth that can make a legitimate claim to being the original Truth.
And it obviates the choices she would otherwise have to make for herself about theology and salvation. The burden of making these choices must weigh on any fervent concerned about ultimate truth but forced by their situation to make them. It is enough to need to pray for forgiveness and mercy, lo that we are forced as well to pray that we understand what Christ told us in the way He intended it be understood.
With Orthodoxy, her choice is to accept a different species of truth, to be able to say with some confidence that the understanding of the men who were blessed to sit at His feet has been preserved in full, as He apparently desired it would be. The history of the Church attests to preservation and continuity, so in a way she is electing to make no further choices but to submit to the apparent reality that that preservation has been faithful, and in earnest. Also, because of the unchanging nature of it as understood by the Church, given that the Church is full of fallible people, some with agendas, we can conclude without much difficulty that the Church likely has been guided by the Holy Spirit in preserving it, else it would have mutated by now.
And with nearly 2000 years of continuity behind it, she can rest assured that her children and grandchildren will never have to look elsewhere for Truth, it will continue to be preserved. The can study Truth at great length, they can write and speak about it in new and innovative ways that appeal to the minds of different generations, the Church continues to produce theologians, and saints. But they don't have to worry about finding it for themselves
So my chief objection with the Protestant worldview is that it does not pursue what most Christians through history have believed in, a fixed truth, Indeed it does not believe in one by its very nature, nor manifest one in reality. ALL are faithfully seeking to follow Christ, but all have to concede that they don't know and can't know the full Apostolic Truth, unless they go to the well. And once learning about Orthodoxy and its claim to preserved Truth, which has as firm a foundation as much of what is regularly accepted as historical fact, Protestants will resist the idea of the Church because of the climate they have lived in and the way they have come to think about Truth. Once they get past the idea that they can know it themselves, the idea that someone else claims to know it really raises their hackles. in whatever form it is presented. That's why this forum is filled with many folks who are humbly saying they are not sure of the truth, and one who is saying he is. I hope, at least, that to those who have so written, I have convinced you that I don't speak from personal or even Church pride. The spirit of the Church is, first and foremost, humility. Part of that humility is submission to the preserved understanding of Truth, and, hence, defense of it.
The wife is cracking down, I'm not punting, but I'm frankly a bit overwhelmed by sheer volume. I have an obligation to answer these posts, to defend the faith, and to be faithful in answering all who have spent their valuable time writing.
I'm one person answering many, so the next time someone feels a compulsion to complain about successive posts, please consider that. If you don't like it, no one is holding a gun to your head.
The issue of the nature and understanding of Truth, our stumbling block here, brings much of this discussion to an impasse. I will continue to defend my understanding of it against any new arguments and in answer to any questions, but I can't add much more in reference to the arguments people have already made that I haven't already said, or that is not communicated better in this essay.
To anyone posting to me, I appreciate your time, whether it is spent in inquiry or in fervent battle against what you see as spiritually dangerous, or anything in between.
SQ
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
And you were saying that I make long posts ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Dear Sophia, I think you are seeing things from an intellectual's point of view. Since truth is not to be learnt and acknowledged but to be experienced and lived, what happens with these people who sincerely experience things and feel that Orthodoxy's teachings are wrong? For example, there are many here on Ship that think that the Church's stance on e.g. homosexuality or masturbation is wrong. They think so not because they have chose to have an opinion on the matter, but because their personal experience gives them this understanding. Are you saying that these people are not to trust their personal experience and submit to Orthodox teachings? Are you saying that the Orthodox experience is more full than theirs? How do you reply to that?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mertseger
Faerie Bard
# 4534
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
And you were saying that I make long posts
You've grown to fit the culture of the boards quite well since your arrival, andreas1984. I'm holding out similar hopes for this more recent arrival.
--------------------
Go and be who you are:
The Body of Christ,
The Goddess of Body,
The Manifest Song of Faerie.
Posts: 1765 | From: Oakland, CA, USA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
<Big Snip>
Perhaps it would be helpful if we had a common understanding of Truth. I have defined it as the Apostolic understanding of Christ's teaching.
If we are immortal and if communion with our Creator is contingent upon us acting upon Christ's message, then the knowledge of both the nature of that message and what makes it most possible for a person to adhere to it constitute the entirety of Truth, in the ultimate sense.
This, I believe, would be a pretty common Christian understanding of Truth.
<Another Big Snip>
SQ
Except that is not how I define Truth. Truth is Jesus. Not the teachings of the Church (any Church), or the teachings of the Apostles. Truth is becoming one with the mind of Christ. Something that I simply don't believe is possible on this plane of existance. The only way that I will know truth is by traveling to Heavenly Jerusalem.
I know that there are people who have come close to this ideal in this world (saints for example), but even they would say that they do not know perfectly the mind of Christ.
So then how can I seriously take any claim of a church that says that they have the truth? In my mind they can't, because having the truth means that they have become one with Jesus, something that is not possible on Earth.
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
SQ, that post was 3087 words long. For the benefit of the people who are actually still reading this thread properly, maybe you could make things a little shorter?
And as St S said, truth is what Jesus aactually said, not what any church says Jesus said.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
So my chief objection with the Protestant worldview is that it does not pursue what most Christians through history have believed in, a fixed truth,
However many times you say this, it will still not be true. Many Protestants are in fact doing their best to pursue a fixed truth. They think it exists and that with God's grace they can know it, at least as much of it as they need to know in this life. Your repeated claims that Protestants do not submit to a whole theology are also contradicted by the real submission of millions of Protestants. You may not have done so when you were a Protestant, but that doesn't mean no Protestants do.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I definitely did when I was a Protestant. Of course it led me to Orthodoxy so maybe I'm not the best example.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Dear Sophia, I think you are seeing things from an intellectual's point of view. Since truth is not to be learnt and acknowledged but to be experienced and lived, what happens with these people who sincerely experience things and feel that Orthodoxy's teachings are wrong? For example, there are many here on Ship that think that the Church's stance on e.g. homosexuality or masturbation is wrong. They think so not because they have chose to have an opinion on the matter, but because their personal experience gives them this understanding. Are you saying that these people are not to trust their personal experience and submit to Orthodox teachings? Are you saying that the Orthodox experience is more full than theirs? How do you reply to that?
Hi Andreas – Obviously I disagree with the premise that Truth is found by each of us through our experience. ___________ is found that way (meaning? Fulfillment? I don't know, but it's not Truth unless by accidental concurrence.) Truth is of a higher order and derives from the Highest Source.
Am I reading you correctly? Are you saying that any part about our salvation is something that we define in any regard for ourselves, after we have experiences in life? If so, do you know of a Biblical foundation for that belief? I can see you saying that we live out our understanding of salvation (if we are committed). But can one say that we can in some way define the parameters of what is necessary from us to find salvation?
By defining even some of the terms of our own salvation, we would be presuming to define God's expectations of us. And in some cases we are saying that we are somehow special, exempt from some of the rules that Christians everywhere have historically understood apply to them. We're not. God's view of what corrupts and diminishes us does not change and never will.
The above certainly applies in the cases of homosexuality and self-abuse, something I have struggled with. There were times when I figured God could not possibly 'hold it against me', the compulsion was so strong. Yet we are called to struggle, to resist sin unto blood, and repent in tears. Do we do this? Perhaps sometimes.
What diminishes us is not that we feel compulsions, but that we surrender to them. Far from denying ourselves, as we are called to do, we deny God. Father John the Short (4th century) puts these things in the proper Christian perspective: “Having let go of a light burden, namely, self-reproach, we have taken up the heaviest, namely, self-justification.”
This eats at our hearts and our conscience, discouraging our full participation in a life in Christ, because we know that the life is founded, in part, on a lie. It's the same in any loving relationship: How do we feel when we 'hide' something from our spouses that we know we should not be doing? The existence of that thing in the relationship pollutes it. So it is with our relationship with God, we can hide nothing from him, even the fact that we are merely pretending that everything is all right between us.
We can surround ourselves with people and arguments to the contrary, but we know the truth about such things in our hearts. The same can be said of adultery, no less a sin than homosexuality. Poison is introduced into something holy, the marriage sacrament.
Some will say that they simply know that they are gay. They have never felt an attraction to the opposite sex, and have always felt one for their sex. This is undoubtedly true, and represents a very heavy cross to bear.
The other element of your post concerns the emotional aspect of our life in Christ. That people in all churches have transforming experiences is true, but these experiences have little to do, in general, with the beliefs and practices of the Church (except as support and as the center of loving Christian community), nor do they generally have to do with a person's own theology. They originate and manifest in love, which is why they move us and encourage us in the faith. If a person is already close to God, they don't lose their love of God or any of his love for them if they change their church.
It is a blessing whenever we share love with God, but the experience is an element of our salvation (the center of it), and is sufficient in and of itself. It cannot lead to truthful revelations about God's expectations of us, those are fixed if He is a loving God.
SQ
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
<Big Snip>
Perhaps it would be helpful if we had a common understanding of Truth. I have defined it as the Apostolic understanding of Christ's teaching.
If we are immortal and if communion with our Creator is contingent upon us acting upon Christ's message, then the knowledge of both the nature of that message and what makes it most possible for a person to adhere to it constitute the entirety of Truth, in the ultimate sense.
This, I believe, would be a pretty common Christian understanding of Truth.
Another Big Snip>
[QUOTE]Except that is not how I define Truth. Truth is Jesus. Not the teachings of the Church (any Church), or the teachings of the Apostles. Truth is becoming one with the mind of Christ. Something that I simply don't believe is possible on this plane of existance. The only way that I will know truth is by traveling to Heavenly Jerusalem.
I know that there are people who have come close to this ideal in this world (saints for example), but even they would say that they do not know perfectly the mind of Christ.
So then how can I seriously take any claim of a church that says that they have the truth? In my mind they can't, because having the truth means that they have become one with Jesus, something that is not possible on Earth.
Hi St. SS,
We are manifestly not talking about the fullness of truth about the nature and essence of the Triune God, nor communinon with His essence. Even His nature we cannot explain in words and CANNOT understand, even after we see Him. The Church submits to many gaps in revealed knowledgs. We don't understand how or why some things happen, or why they are true. I would not trust any Church claiming to know the essence of the Creator.
We are talking about what matters to us, here and now, and that is how we find our way to our Maker. There is a truth about it that existed on this planet, if only for the fraction of a second that His words hung in the air. How long that Truth lasted is a good question.
To say that one is guided by 'Jesus' is redundant if one is talking to Christians. We are each guided by an understanding of Jesus, and if one says otherwise, at this point in the discussion, I will frankly be amazed unless they are speaking in a mystical/spiritual sense only, because we are _clearly_ guided by a different Christ in different churches, they are one in faith and love perhaps, but manifestly _not_ in their understanding of Christ, his expectations, and our part in our salvation. So yes, Truth is Jesus, and so is unchanging, but what guides us is our understanding of it, even if that is simple acceptance of church dogmas. To say that we are all guided by the same Jesus is hokum, many of us can identify whole denominations which consider themselves Christian but are, in our opinoins, peddling spiritual poison. If we are not guided by the same understanding of Jesus, we are not guided by the same understanding of Truth, it is accepted as, to some degree, relative.
I answered a number of questions about Orthodoxy's adherence to various things found in scripture. So let me take a turn at that and ask you (or anyone else who would care to answer): Does your church encourage believers to fast? If so, in what way, and why does your church encourage it?
If your church does not encourage it, do you know why they don't?
SQ
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
So my chief objection with the Protestant worldview is that it does not pursue what most Christians through history have believed in, a fixed truth,
However many times you say this, it will still not be true. Many Protestants are in fact doing their best to pursue a fixed truth. They think it exists and that with God's grace they can know it, at least as much of it as they need to know in this life. Your repeated claims that Protestants do not submit to a whole theology are also contradicted by the real submission of millions of Protestants. You may not have done so when you were a Protestant, but that doesn't mean no Protestants do.
Hi Ruth,
I have said repeatedly that many earnest Protestants are looking for Truth. And also that some submit in whole to a Church's dogmas.
My argument that Protestants don't pursue a fixed truth is accurate because they consider truth in the same way you do, something that can be better understood, and well enough for salvation. If there exists a fixed truth about theology and salvation, they believe, we cannot know it in fullness, objectively.
Ruth, reason tells me to expect universal salvation. But I don't believe in it because something very different was revealed to us. We all hope that what we understand about our salvation is sufficient, with faith and diligence, to lead us to our maker. (If a person does not believe they are walking a saving path and they are doing nothing about it, they are not convinced of their immortality.)
I'm inclined to think, considering the great power we are all given by our maker, that He has great expectations of us, and that we narrow their possible scope and significance at our peril. So though I may be able to understand much about salvation for myself, I'm not willing to take chances by not seeking the fullest possible understanding of it (for example, what is meant by self denial, and are there ways to encourage its development?)
If we earnestly hope for salvation, we will hope to find the Truth, to the extent that it is available to us. To categorically say that the OC cannot have preserved truth seems to limit God's power, and so the OC's claim to having preserved an unchanged truth, which appears to accord with history, is something that should be examined, as the church should be examined, by any Christian earnestly seeking truth.
In so doing, if the criteria for judging it is, “does it agree with my theology” one is likely to find much that is pleasing, and much that they disagree with, and so they may reject the Church on that account. If that is a person's inclination, it is my hope that they will at least endeavor to learn more before doing so, and that they consider what it is they are really looking for, in turning away.
SQ
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I think you have a too high opinion of Orthodoxy and a too low opinion of Protestants.
It is a total myth to say that all Protestants believe different things. It's a myth to say they don't gather around the central Truth of Christ and his word. It's a total and breathtakingly arrogant thing to say that unless one accepts Orthodox dogma one has little concept of the Truth.
Give one example - if you can - of a fundamental doctrinal truth that is interpreted many, many different and contradictory ways by Protestantism.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
Ms Questions,
Please, oh please, go easy on the mega-overkill triple-posting mayhem. How many time do people need to ask?
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
This;
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
....I sincerely believe that you believe to the core of your being that what you are saying is accurate, and that you earnestly believe that what you believe is true, the fullness of Truth as you can understand it at present.
and this;
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
So my chief objection with the Protestant worldview is that it does not pursue what most Christians through history have believed in, a fixed truth
Seem contradictory to me.
It seems to me that you think "choosing what to believe" and "not pursuing fixed truth" is an appropriate label for people who describe themselves; "after prayer, discussion, consideration, communion .... all motivated on what is right, what is testable, what is true....... I have felt the Protestant tradition most faithfull to the truth. (Note again, the truth.... not a truth)."
It seems to me that anything other than belief in whichever flavour of Orthodoxy you favour is not seeking after truth, and is deciding for oneself.
However, you have also decided to choose to believe the church to be infallible. To choose to believe that direct, unbroken, unreformed Apostolic succession is above all. To make a judgement that the Church has not changed (with which many of your brethren disagree).... and that that judgement is an absolute arbiter of the true church.
How are these not choices?
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dobbo
Shipmate
# 5850
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
PS referring to Christian denominations as sects is not a good way to earn respect.
Do not be hard on SQ - that is probably what is being preached from orthodox pulpits (see article below) and as the Orthodox Church are sole proprietors of the Ultimate Truth ™ (in its fullness) ie Jesus Christ, it must be true. No thought is actually required by the congregations, because the orthodox church is protected from heresy so everything it says is accurate . It simply is a no brainer.
Sorry Mudfrog you will feature on their next hit list as well
quote:
Iakovos, the archbishop of the Greek Orthodox Church of North and South America since 1959, has issued an interfaith marriage encyclical labeling Assemblies of God and Pentecostal adherents "not of the Christian tradition." ....
Efthimiou says some charismatic and holiness groups are cultic because of "incoherent theology" and "failure to baptize in the name of the Trinity." .....
He says Iakovos is preparing a second encyclical that will expound on the first. Other groups will be added to the exclusion list, he says, including branches of the Church of God and the Salvation Army.
Christianity Today - Archbishop Calls Pentecostals Non-Christian
--------------------
I'm holding out for Grace......, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity
Bono
Posts: 395 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
We are talking about what matters to us, here and now, and that is how we find our way to our Maker. There is a truth about it that existed on this planet, if only for the fraction of a second that His words hung in the air. How long that Truth lasted is a good question.
This is where you and I disagree. You seem to be stating to me that Jesus set up a church with dogmas and rules to follow. That I find to be untrue. Jesus gave us a way to live, not a church. The Church (of which I mean ALL Christians; Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant and anyone else) is a way to preserve his spirit on this Earth so that others can find him. Not dogmas or rituals.
I keep seeing you thinking of Jesus as a set of rules and regulations that we have to follow. I keep seeing Jesus as a person with thoughts, feelings, and most definately love for people who are outside of society.
quote:
I answered a number of questions about Orthodoxy's adherence to various things found in scripture. So let me take a turn at that and ask you (or anyone else who would care to answer): Does your church encourage believers to fast? If so, in what way, and why does your church encourage it?
If your church does not encourage it, do you know why they don't?
SQ
If by fasting you mean avoidance of either certain foods or giving up things that mean something to us, but are not needed for life, then yes.
Those things can be blocks to us finding our way to Jesus, and therefore are things that need to be removed.
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
If we earnestly hope for salvation, we will hope to find the Truth, to the extent that it is available to us. To categorically say that the OC cannot have preserved truth seems to limit God's power, and so the OC's claim to having preserved an unchanged truth, which appears to accord with history, is something that should be examined, as the church should be examined, by any Christian earnestly seeking truth.
In so doing, if the criteria for judging it is, “does it agree with my theology” one is likely to find much that is pleasing, and much that they disagree with, and so they may reject the Church on that account. If that is a person's inclination, it is my hope that they will at least endeavor to learn more before doing so, and that they consider what it is they are really looking for, in turning away.
All the claims you make for Orthodoxy are claims that some Protestants make for their churches, and on pretty much the same grounds (the Holy Spirit guides the church). My parents believe they are in possession of the fullest Truth available in this life.
I am hereby withdrawing from this thread. I'm tired of your disrespect for millions of other Christians.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
I believe you have misread my previous posts. I am not incredibly emotional about this topic--in fact I find a lot about Orthodoxy to be fascinatingly illuminating. I am emotional about the way you believe yourself to have the Ultimate Truth. That kind of attitude makes me physically ill.
Digory,
I don't 'believe myself” to have the Truth, for one, my understanding of it is limited. For another, it is not 'mine' except to the extent that I have decided to submit to it.
So you have decided to submit to this Truth, because in your opinion, it’s the Ultimate Truth. And those of us who have not decided to submit to this Truth are fundamentally wrong in our understanding of the true nature of God, etc. In other words, you believe yourself to have the Ultimate Truth.
quote:
The source of Truth is beyond me. And believing 'that' it is true does me little good, I have to humbly follow it if any spiritual transformation is to occur. If you still think that I am coming from a position of pride, please tell me why you believe that, in light of what I said above.
If you don't think that the source of my conviction is pride, in what other instances does non-prideful defense of something greater than oneself make you ill?
If you can't think of any, why in this case?
I don’t accuse you of being prideful. I don’t even know you—any heightened emotions were directed at your thoughts and things you’ve said and not you personally. I don’t judge you and I recognize that, thankfully, you don’t presume to judge me either. I’m thankful for that.
My ill feelings come from the things I will explain below, and I see no reason to elaborate on them here.
quote:
But simply put, as in anything important that affects us profoundly, we should want to know the full truth about it, as best we are able, and if someone does not examine this - by all appearances legitimate, historically established claim - to the Truth, about that which they say is at the foundation of their life, they are chiefly motivated by something other than a desire to know the Apostolic understanding. I cannot fathom why that would be the case for any Christian.
“…chiefly motivated by something other than a desire to know the Apostolic understanding…”
That’s me to a T. I honestly do not care how the Apostles understood the gospel, except in that it may aid me in not making the same mistakes they made (see Peter’s misunderstandings of Jewish law, James and John’s desire to keep Christianity only amongst Jews, Paul and Barnabas’ disagreement, etc) and their illuminations on how to think about some of the lessons Jesus taught. I respect them highly, but I don’t claim that their understanding is my final aim. I think our final aim can be much higher than that, in the Real Truth of Christ, and he’s promised to leave his Spirit here, available to all of us, to aid us along in that pursuit.
quote:
There exists no other history of things, so to deny what history exists (which is fairly extensive) requires one to believe that the history they are reading is a lie. The works that all talk about defending a Truth, as understood to be embodied and defended by a Church identified by St. Paul in 66, St. Clement in 96, St. Iraneus in 175 and all the rest, have to have been willfully fabricated, and the alternative histories destroyed, in order to deny the abundant written testimony.
Did the Church come off its apostolic moorings? If so, the history of it is buried, lost to us completely. If it in fact happened, if they started spinning our new theologies and understandings, how is that possible that no evidence of it exists?
To utterly deny that history is written by the victors, and to throw away the notion that things could have been fabricated and other understandings destroyed through history, would be rather naïve. I don’t necessarily believe that it happened this way, but I acknowledge the possibility to exist.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
And here we all can plainly see it. The EOC's theology and major tenets of belief have not changed since the earliest church. How do we know what the earliest church believed? By looking at the Orthodox church, of course.
It's so obvious now.
The only reliable guide to the Apostolic tradition is the OC. If you don't think continuity and consistency = reliability, in what other cases is this not true with regard to any knowledge, once it is known?
The point is that you can’t use your own evidence to prove your evidence. If you want to say that the EOC is the only reliable guide to the Apostolic tradition, fine. You cannot then make the jump to assert that the Apostolic tradition, as described by the EOC, is the only reliable guide to Jesus’ teachings. Of course, you can SAY it. You just can’t prove it like I think you’d like to.
quote:
Side question: Do you believe that the theology of Orthodox Jews could have remained unchanged for any 1700 year stretch?
Well, I could easily prove that it has. I could say that the only reliable guide we have to how Orthodox Judaism was 1700 years ago is the Orthodox Jewish temple down the street from where I live. If I go down there, I then make a comparison. I compare today’s Temple practices/beliefs to the practices/beliefs of 1700 years ago. But I don’t have anything to tell me about 1700 years ago except today’s practices/beliefs. So the comparison becomes:
Is today’s church exactly like today’s church? The answer is always yes.
quote:
How is this manifest in your Church? Where do those who literally desire to divorce themselves from the things of this world, as the Creator said was the ideal, go to rest their hearts full of humility and thirsting for complete obedience?
As to all Orthodox doing it it was done in some places, but not in most, (of which there exists any record) and you won't find the Fathers telling anyone they have to do this to find salvation. Since there isn't evidence that it was expected of all Christians, ever, but is instead an ideal, the Church does not expect it of all believers.
I would like to hear now how your Church incorporates this ideal into its life in the way Christ seems to have meant, and if it doesn't, why it doesn't.
It doesn’t, but then again, it doesn’t proclaim that it must. Like I’ve said before, I don’t believe that my church has to be similar to some church 1700 years ago in order for it to maintain some sort of authority. I believe that standing on the shoulders of the Fathers and the Apostles helps us to see better, and to continue to yearn after the revelations of God through his Spirit which he left for us.
There is a multitude of churches. There is a multitude of people. It fits perfectly for me.
(Not because Truth is changing or relative. But because our understanding of Truth is always flawed, and because our relationship to Truth will depend on who we are and where we’ve come from. It seems as though you have confused your church’s understanding of Truth with the Fullness of Truth as it exists in Christ.)
Regards,
Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think you have a too high opinion of Orthodoxy and a too low opinion of Protestants.
It is a total myth to say that all Protestants believe different things. It's a myth to say they don't gather around the central Truth of Christ and his word. It's a total and breathtakingly arrogant thing to say that unless one accepts Orthodox dogma one has little concept of the Truth.
Give one example - if you can - of a fundamental doctrinal truth that is interpreted many, many different and contradictory ways by Protestantism.
Hi Mudfrog,
I don't think that you nor any of the other people here have 'little concept' - for all I know you know much more about it than do I. That is not the point. The point is where the understanding is rooted. Does it matter where the roots are, or how deep they go? It seems it does if a consistent understanding is desired. See list below.
Your last comment is the bottom line of the entire debate. If there are no differences in the essential elements of the faith, then perhaps church theology and the rest of it are irrelevant. Obviously I would argue that the OC's understanding is radically different than any Protestant understanding, but your question is specific to protestants.
So here's a few ways in which Protestant groups differ, in ways that may or may not have any affect on their members' salvation:
1.Symbolism – many groups think that some of the fundamental elements of the faith, such as the sacraments, are real, some think them symbolic.
2.Some rely upon ancient sources for guidance, some equate anything between _______ (some date after Christ's ascension) and 1520 to be essentially ________ (irrelevant, controlling, dictatorial in its consistency, whatever).
3.Some believe that once a person has been saved, they will always be saved. Others believe a person can lose God's grace.
4.Some (such as the Jehovah's Witnesses) demand spiritual discipline of their members (proselytizing in that case), others don't.
5.Some understanding their church's belief to be the fullness of truth about their salvation some admit it's an uncertain thing.
6.Some accept an evolving understanding of sin, others do not.
7.Some tell believers to submit to the church's understanding of theology, others encourage innovation.
8.Some believe the truth about the path of salvation is evolving, some believe it fixed. Some say that it is different for each person – not the experience, but the expectations they are meant to meet.
You might say that none of those could have any impact on our salvation. If you do it would be presumptuous – you can't be sure, and many people would argue otherwise.
Of course you could say that there is a general consensus about most of them, and that any denominations which differ are marginal. But the Protestant progenitors (people such as Calvin, Luther, and C.T. Russell - the JW founder) all arrived at their understanding in a similar way: an earnest study of scripture, and prayer. So that argument dissolves either into dueling interpretations, or a numbers argument – there are more _________ than Jws, so they must be wrong.
SQ
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
This,
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions: I sincerely believe that you believe to the core of your being that what you are saying is accurate, and that you earnestly believe that what you believe is true, the fullness of Truth as you can understand it at present.
and this;
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions: So my chief objection with the Protestant worldview is that it does not pursue what most Christians through history have believed in, a fixed truth.
Seem contradictory to me.
Hi Mdijon,
You describe how you ascertain truth as follows, "after prayer, discussion, consideration, communion .... all motivated on what is right, what is testable, what is true......”
It does not require prayer to ascertain the fundamental truth about the faith (Christ saves, follow Him). So what you are praying for with regard to theology must be a more specific understanding than that. How do you suppose the 'once saved, always saved' believers arrived at their theology? It is in direct and radical opposition to other Protestant understandings. Do you think they were any less prayerful, or any less earnest, or any less faithful than you?
FIXED truth means that there is an answer, in finality, to the question. If people come to contradictory conclusions through prayer (and all the rest you mentioned), unless we are prepared to judge the hearts and the faithfulness of others, we must accept that it is not fixed truth that is being found, but rather an understanding.
I'm not going to respond to some of this that repeats what we've discussed and focus on what is new.
quote:
It seems to me that anything other than belief in whichever flavour of Orthodoxy you favour is not seeking after truth, and is deciding for oneself.
Though people decide (by categorical necessity, even if they are cradle) amongst demoninations in Protestantism, were I to characterize that as not being interested in truth I would be judging their intentions. They believe they are finding truth as best they are able. My argument is that they can find it in fullness, and there is good reason to believe, given the consistency, that it's correct. What a person does with that knowledge is up to them.
I can tell you this much. If I were to learn tomorrow that a huge library, full of materials dating from the 1st through the 4th centuries had been found, I would want to know what was in it, so that I could learn what the early Christians believed about their salvation.
quote:
However, you have also decided to choose to believe the church to be infallible. To choose to believe that direct, unbroken, unreformed Apostolic succession is above all.
Importantly: If we can't identify fixed Truth, and those with radical views believe the foundation of them to be grace-filled, prayerful contemplation, how do we correct them? Lots of folks here seem to think the JWs are way off the mark. Try correcting one. You can't. They see saving things in their church, and they see their membership, unlike anyone except the mormons, living their faith through proselytizing. You can't convince them because you come from no firmer foundation than they do: your post-15th century church's understanding, one among many.
Without something fixed to measure it against, truth is what we make of it to the extent that it is malleable at all, and modern Christianity attests to significant malleability. The Apostolic understanding serves as the only rational measuring stick against which to compare other understandings.
quote:
To make a judgement that the Church has not changed (with which many of your brethren disagree).... and that that judgement is an absolute arbiter of the true church.
How are these not choices?
MJ, I have been imploring others here for days to offer some examples of how Orthodoxy has changed its theology, and nothing has come my way. I have provided evidence of the other side.
Yes, deciding to believe that the Church is infallible is a choice (That is, the Church as a whole; not every priest, bishop, church, or even diocese is always right – witness the earlier discussion on original sin referencing the Australian site, which seemed to say that the Orthodox and RC understandings are the same. I checked with my priest, and the site is wrong, I'll be contacting them).
But accepting it is not a leap of faith, except where it already exists, in God. We don't trust the Church because of the brilliance of its bishops, or because of its wealth of knowledge. In the first millenium almost all Christians trusted it because it was simply the Church, there was nothing else down the road. Today we trust it because in spite of all the change around it, the Church is not affected by the times. It's unchanging nature and consistent understanding tell us that something greater than men is guiding it. Ultimately, it is that guidance in which we have placed our faith and made our choice.
SQ
(St. S.o.S: this post is proof of miracles, it may actually be proper UBB use. You are a patient fellow.)
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
Originally posted by Dobbo regarding my reference to denominations as sects, a habit I am trying to break.
quote:
Do not be hard on SQ - that is probably what is being preached from orthodox pulpits (see article below) and as the Orthodox Church are sole proprietors of the Ultimate Truth ™ (in its fullness) ie Jesus Christ, it must be true. No thought is actually required by the congregations, because the orthodox church is protected from heresy so everything it says is accurate . It simply is a no brainer.
Hi Dobbo,
Then you go on to cite a bishop of the Greek church who has said that snake handling and poison drinking are more cultish than they are part of the Christian tradition.
Whether he is correct or not, he is speaking not for the Church as a whole, and anything he says is tempered by the Church's prayers for mercy for every faithful person.
No Orthodox priest would say that the Pentecostal church is 'Christ's Church' because – you guessed it – the Church is both spiritual and manifest, and always has been.
If you think that the faith need only be understood so generally that there is no room for excluding anyone who, “saith, lord, lord”, then why are you here, or interested in anything but general truth? If no deeper or purer understanding of salvation and Christian life to that end exists conspicuously, and is in any case unnecessary, then any time you spend here is time wasted, it should be spent on your knees in repentance and prayer, and on working out your salvation with fear and trembling. Because everyone here already agrees on the general truth. If that is all that is necessary, a lot of the discussion on this site is in no way beneficial to us in regard to salvation. Anything aside from ___how to live it___ is hot air.
I maintain that this understanding, in light of St. Paul's prayerful tears that the Truth be adhered to, is 'strictly un-Biblical'.
And if one presumes that only a general truth need be understood, and that only a life inside some general and wide parameters need be lived in order to follow Christ, that is a presumption with potentially eternal implications, so is not one to make lightly
SQ
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
Originally posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov:
quote:
This is where you and I disagree. You seem to be stating to me that Jesus set up a church with dogmas and rules to follow. That I find to be untrue. Jesus gave us a way to live, not a church. The Church (of which I mean ALL Christians; Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant and anyone else) is a way to preserve his spirit on this Earth so that others can find him. Not dogmas or rituals.
I keep seeing you thinking of Jesus as a set of rules and regulations that we have to follow. I keep seeing Jesus as a person with thoughts, feelings, and most definately love for people who are outside of society.
Hi SsoS,
I see where you are coming from.
I think the source of your feelings may lie in part in the natural reaction to someone doggedly insisting that they know the Truth about what everyone is arguing about. That kind of mindset is often accompanied by a bureaucratic zeal of 'rightness' and 'wrongness', all neatly laid out in triplicate.
That's not what the Church seeks to safeguard. That the Church has fixed dogma is a given, it's name derives from the greek word for 'correct', or 'straight'. If something is correct you don't change it.
Canons guide the Church's internal affairs and the life of believers- – to the extent believers live according to them. And they are of both an administrative nature and a salvific nature. And can be contained in a small book.
Consider something as simple as the canon against Priests cutting their hair and beards. It's not an arbitrary thing – the priest serves, in all ways, as an example to the flock and an example of a life in Christ. When a priest takes pains with his appearance, particularly in an effort to keep up with 'the times', he is saying by doing so that it is important, and even those who have manifestly committed their life to their Master cannot be expected to resist earthly lures and snares. More on this below RE fasting.
Regarding the general point about the importance of being 'doctrinaire', which can lead one to a loveless view of Christ, I will say this: There are people in the OC to which the details of worship and the like, the things about the Church which are not generally important to salvation, take on an immense importance. Some have even broken from the Church because it is not sufficiently doctrinaire. This is always to be lamented, and because Orthodox have a fixed set of ideas about all aspects of the Christian life, it is a trap into which Orthodox may seem more likely to blunder. I can't say what the percentage of Orthodox are who are not living a fruitful life in Christ, but that life is manifestly what the Church encourages. To the extent that the Church tells believers to do things such as fasting, it is not to satisfy the Church, but to encourage a life in Christ.
That the Church provides specific tools for salvation (which are in fact conducive to spiritual growth) and encourages believers to use them is not to satisfy any urge to follow rules. In fact, with something such as fasting, it is better not to do it if doing it encourages pride. Everything is considered in light of salvation, the ultimate end of everyone, and the aim of the Church.
Beyond that, I can only ask you to trust me when I say that the life of the Church is not one of staid submission, it is a vibrant, yet humble and hopeful live of love. Nor is it a Church of exclusion. In regard to my friend, I checked, and as I knew I would find, the Church baptizes post-operative transsexuals.
As to the room in the Church for theology and a vibrant intellectual life in Christ: I will spend the non-arthritic years of my life writing about Christ and how the Church understands Him and our relation to Him. They will be arguments in accordance with the Church's understanding because I am not interested in starting my own Church. But they will be my words, the thoughts will have my heart and mind behind them, and writing them will give me every bit as much pleasure as would speculating about the Truth. I will also speak about it, and with conviction. Everything in the intellectual life in Christ is available to one in the Church except invention of new theology.
I asked about your Church's beliefs and practice RE fasting, you said what most Protestants I've met have said, quote:
If by fasting you mean avoidance of either certain foods or giving up things that mean something to us, but are not needed for life, then yes.
Those things can be blocks to us finding our way to Jesus, and therefore are things that need to be removed.
It is what I meant in a general sense, but I'd guess that in your church, after that general guidance, believers are left on their own as to what to do, perhaps with some suggestions of what to give up, often around Easter.
Orthodox are encourage to follow the fasting as spelled out on the liturgical calendar, which amounts to about half the year. The fast is every Wednesday and Friday, and around a number of feasts of the year, and we fast from all meat aside from shellfish, and all dairy products. And, ideally, from sex.
The purpose of the fast is manifold, in part we do it because Christ expected it by telling us what not to do when we fast, and because the Apostles did it.
They did it, the Church believes, because when we are able to deny our passions in small things, it becomes easier to do so in the things that affect our salvation, and in practice that seems to be true. Fasting also shows us how attached we are to the things of this world, and also encourages us to be thankful for the good things God has given us here, the tiny foretaste of what He has for us. The prayer over the meaty, cheesy meal following the seven week Easter fast is one said in earnest, as are the prayers of thanks to God for one's spouse.
Here is an article that addresses all aspects of fasting, including traditional Protestant objections to the Orthodox Church's practice of it: fasting
SQ
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
SQ, I think you are building a straw-man about fasting. I love fasting and I'm not even Orthodox. I think you'll find it hard to find around here those that disagree about the importance of fasting (except, of course, Gordon Cheng who would argue that it is legalism - but he's busy so no worries, mate).
--------------------
[Nino points a gun at Chiki]
Nino: Now... tell me. Who started the war?
Chiki: [long pause] We did.
~No Man's Land
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
All the claims you make for Orthodoxy are claims that some Protestants make for their churches, and on pretty much the same grounds (the Holy Spirit guides the church). My parents believe they are in possession of the fullest Truth available in this life.
I am hereby withdrawing from this thread. I'm tired of your disrespect for millions of other Christians.
I'm sorry to see you go, Ruth. And I'm sorry that I have done such a poor job in defense of my faith that you consider what I am saying to be relentless disrespect of other Christians.
SQ
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanc
Shipmate
# 6355
|
Posted
quote:
by Sophia's Questions
But the Protestant progenitors (people such as Calvin, Luther, and C.T. Russell - the JW founder) all arrived at their understanding in a similar way: an earnest study of scripture, and prayer. So that argument dissolves either into dueling interpretations, or a numbers argument... so they must be wrong.
We can't say they must be wrong. What will become of the expressed command to test all spirits? We can rather say with certainty that they can't all be right.
Reading your posts, I come to this understanding: There is an ultimate truth, since protestants differ considerably in what they believe to be true, there's no truth in them. And since the OC has consistently for centuries adhered to a set of doctrines traceable to the apostles, ultimate truth can only reside with them.
I think this simplification is flawed. Protestantism in the first place contests such claim (that the OC is consistent with what the apostles have to say).
I think GOD's church cannot be walled by the exclusiveness of orthodoxy or heresy. These are human constructs. When JESUS was here on earth, the Jews were having competing sects, (eg. pharisee, sadduces, etc.) but nowhere did HE concern HIMSELF with labeling whose orthodox or not. Instead HE dwelt on persons and motives. Far it be that GOD will judge mankind depending on whether they're orthodox or not.
Posts: 358 | From: Philippines | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
SQ.
I think you have too much to say on a subject that really isn't an issue in ecumenical circles. The fact that in the West the Orthodox church hardly figures might tell you that Orthodoxy is an irrelevance. If it were the main repository of ruth don't you think that God would have made sure there was at least one Orthodox church in most towns? I can't even tell you where there is one - or even where there was one in all the many towns I have lived in.
You are simply WRONG (yes I shouted) about the Orthodox church. It is NOT (shouting again) the sole owner of the Truth. It is NOT infallible, beyond error, and you or your Patriarchs or Metropolitans or whomever have NO right whatever to make statements about other Trinitarian churches - be they Protestant or Catholic, Pentecostal or liturgical - that put them outside the fold.
It is attitudes like yours that have done so much damage to the worldwide church and to the effectiveness of her witness in the modern times.
Spirit of Christ?
I don't think so.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
I think there is a good point there.
If the Eastern Orthodox Church believes it alone is TRUTH and the Western Catholic / Anglican Church is FALSE, then does it not have a duty to plant churches in the West ?
I live in London and there is not an orthodox church that I know about for several miles. Most of the orthodox churches that do exist are so dominated by the social activities for emigres from their own nation state that a native English person would feel rather unwelcome.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
[QUOTE] (big snip)So you have decided to submit to this Truth, because in your opinion, it’s the Ultimate Truth. And those of us who have not decided to submit to this Truth are fundamentally wrong in our understanding of the true nature of God, etc. In other words, you believe yourself to have the Ultimate Truth.
Digory,
My understanding of theology is limited. But I can point to Truth, and access it, and try to live the life it speaks about.
As to anyone else being fundamentally incorrect, that's depends upon the situation. If one endeavors to follow Christ's words but never really engages in self-denial, how successful will they be? Their appetites will likely govern much of their life. So if it is a wrong understanding about something fundamental like humility, or obedience, or self-denial, and how to encourage them, then yes, it could be called 'fundamentally wrong' because it is injurious to, or unhelpful to, our salvation.
And yes, there are wrong understandings of all theological matters and everything related to our life in Christ, otherwise the word 'heresy' has no meaning whatever.
A side note: Are Protestants heretics? You might find some uncharitable Orthodox who would say that. But I would not do so. For one, I see the spirit of love and charity in Protestant communities. Were they generally unloving and uncharitable, by calling themselves Christian they would be slandering all faithful believers, and thus should be called heretics. That is not the case, and your hearts are pure, you are all my brothers and sisters in Christ, and were any of you with me I would treat you as such, and greet you with a kiss.
But more importantly, heresy does not mean what it once did, when the Apostolic Understanding was still basically universally held to be the unvarying Truth, an objective fact that one's family passed down, along with the Church. Today, with a much broader understanding of the faith being the norm, to call someone a heretic is unprofitable for all.
You then made some very conciliatory statements, which I thank you for, and which helped to assure me that you don't think my intentions to be impure.
It's late and I can't get this Ubb correct, probably, sorry. I said,
quote:
But simply put, as in anything important that affects us profoundly, we should want to know the full truth about it, as best we are able, and if someone does not examine this - by all appearances legitimate, historically established claim - to the Truth, about that which they say is at the foundation of their life, they are chiefly motivated by something other than a desire to know the Apostolic understanding. I cannot fathom why that would be the case for any Christian.
quote:
“…chiefly motivated by something other than a desire to know the Apostolic understanding…”
That’s me to a T. I honestly do not care how the Apostles understood the gospel, except in that it may aid me in not making the same mistakes they made ...snip I respect them...snip
I think our final aim can be much higher than that, in the Real Truth of Christ, and he’s promised to leave his Spirit here, available to all of us, to aid us along in that pursuit.
Digory, I would like to think that in that pursuit you will be chiefly guided by Scripture. If you consult it as you walk your road, why would you not consult it before you step onto the road?
Specifically, I would be interested in your Scriptural foundation for the following:
1.Where does Scripture say that there is a higher understanding of the truth available to us than that understood by the ones who kissed His feet and ate with Him?
2.Where does Scripture say that the life in Christ is one in which we find differing ideas of truth?
3.Where does it say that we are to seek truth outside the Church and it's understanding? There's a potent critique of sola scriptura, if that's the way you might choose to go, here, about halfway through under the subhead 'The Repository of Truth'
4.Where does Scripture tell us that it is acceptable for the understanding of theology and salvation to differ from person to person? Their life in Christ will differ, but where are we told to think different things about the foundation of it?
I said,
quote:
There exists no other history of things, so to deny what history exists (which is fairly extensive) requires one to believe that the history they are reading is a lie. The works that all talk about defending a Truth, as understood to be embodied and defended by a Church identified by St. Paul in 66, St. Clement in 96, St. Iraneus in 175 and all the rest, have to have been willfully fabricated, and the alternative histories destroyed, in order to deny the abundant written testimony.
Did the Church come off its apostolic moorings? If so, the history of it is buried, lost to us completely. If it in fact happened, if they started spinning our new theologies and understandings, how is that possible that no evidence of it exists?
your reply
quote:
To utterly deny that history is written by the victors, and to throw away the notion that things could have been fabricated and other understandings destroyed through history, would be rather naïve. I don’t necessarily believe that it happened this way, but I acknowledge the possibility to exist.
Sure, I do as well. But History written by victors is generally accompanied by history written by losers, and in this case, what there is of it is pretty minimal – if it was a world-wide document and memory scrub it was pretty effective. It also requires us to think the Orthodox Jews are in on it, they've lived alongside the OC for 2000 years. They're silent about it if there is an alternate history.
About the adherence to Apostolic Truth you say,
quote:
The point is that you can’t use your own evidence to prove your evidence. If you want to say that the EOC is the only reliable guide to the Apostolic tradition, fine. You cannot then make the jump to assert that the Apostolic tradition, as described by the EOC, is the only reliable guide to Jesus’ teachings. Of course, you can SAY it. You just can’t prove it like I think you’d like to.
No, with finality, nothing is provable. Even our existence – the pantheists may be right, we may be instances of 'the infinite dreamer, dreaming finite dreams'. Can we prove that does not describe reality? No, we cannot.
We live with faith that reality is as it was described by the only one who ever walked the Earth and demonstrated the powers of the Creator, both calling matter into existence from nothing and imbuing dead matter – dead people, and dead cells inside people, with life. Christ compels us with his divinity, his humanity, His humility, and His love. And we accept them on faith, we cannot even prove that He existed.
So we use our best powers of reason to conclude that He probably did in part because our Grandparents say so, as did theirs, and so on back. And the document upon which we rely, The New Testament, was compiled by an Orthodox Church about which there exists extensive historical evidence – tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands of pages) of writings, pre-dating the compilation of the Bible. More, likely, than exist about any other institution from that time on earth. And though some disagreements existed, they attest to a general unanimity of belief about Christ and salvation dating back to Christ. The form of the liturgy may be varied until universalized, but the Truth is as He spoke it, and then explained it, at length.
To think that the Church did not at least do their best is to see people saying, “in spite of my grand-pappy having heard it explained by Peter, I'm going to propagate a different understanding to serve my gigantic ego, or because my 'life in Christ' is so feeble that I don't care enough to learn it properly and pass it on. Hang on a sec, someone's here...................... I have to go, they want to feed me to a lion. Glory to God!”
They died in martyrdom and lived in persecution, yet their steadfastness in all other regards did not extend to a preservation of the understanding of Christ's message, which was explained to them by those they trusted, starting from the earliest age. This is what must be believed to think that the Apostolic understanding was not preserved.
They did preserve it, with faith.
It frankly amazes me that you concede that possibility, yet may be wed to a worldview that tells you that you can find a deeper understanding of Christianity than they had. Scant writings exist from the Apostles themselves, but hundreds of thousands of pages of writings exist from early Christians, many of them saints. You're going to find a deeper understanding than theirs?
Digory, you are conceding in the most explicit terms the mindset I have been most uncharitable about: the individual as the arbiter of Truth.
If you can't defend the foundations of it Biblically, perhaps you'd like to tell me, using reason, how you expect to find this ultimate understanding that exceeds that of the Apostles themselves.
I said, quote:
Side question: Do you believe that the theology of Orthodox Jews could have remained unchanged for any 1700 year stretch?
quote:
Well, I could easily prove that it has. I could say that the only reliable guide we have to how Orthodox Judaism was 1700 years ago is the Orthodox Jewish temple down the street from where I live. If I go down there, I then make a comparison. I compare today’s Temple practices/beliefs to the practices/beliefs of 1700 years ago. But I don’t have anything to tell me about 1700 years ago except today’s practices/beliefs. So the comparison becomes:
Is today’s church exactly like today’s church? The answer is always yes.
So your epistemological problem with it is that there is no other history of the Church and no other history of a preserved Apostolic understanding of the faith?
If in your example you return from the Temple and find from a search of the internet that what you were told is the only history of things, would you be more likely to accept it?
For that matter, do you believe that the Bible is remotely accurate? If that was preserved faithfully and you believe it to be an historical document, why not the massive proliferation of writings in the 4th century which predate the Bible's 'finalization' and attest to consistency from the time of 'the ancients'?
About divorcing oneself from the things of this world, as in monasticism – which was in answer to his question of whether the Church as a whole practices wealth sharing – I asked what provisions his church makes for those who would choose the monastic path which most seems to mirror the ideal described in Scripture, PK said,
quote:
It doesn’t, but then again, it doesn’t proclaim that it must. Like I’ve said before, I don’t believe that my church has to be similar to some church 1700 years ago in order for it to maintain some sort of authority.
The fact the the OC makes provision for it, though they don't ask it of anyone, is a testament to their faithfulness to Scripture.
quote:
There is a multitude of churches. There is a multitude of people. It fits perfectly for me.
(Not because Truth is changing or relative. But because our understanding of Truth is always flawed, and because our relationship to Truth will depend on who we are and where we’ve come from. It seems as though you have confused your church’s understanding of Truth with the Fullness of Truth as it exists in Christ.)
That fullness as you see it manifests in many different understandings of the nature of our life in Christ and our salvation. They may all have elements of truth, but if they are different, unless the truth of all these things is very general, they are not Capital T truth. A loving Creator would not burden us with the responsibility of finding the Truth for ourselves, He has made it possible that it be made known to us through all time, so that we can get on about what we are really here to do, become more like our Maker.
Regards,
SQ
I won't be around for a few days. My best wishes to all.
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
*yawn*
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally from Sophia’s Questions:
1.Symbolism – many groups think that some of the fundamental elements of the faith, such as the sacraments, are real, some think them symbolic.
2.Some rely upon ancient sources for guidance, some equate anything between _______ (some date after Christ's ascension) and 1520 to be essentially ________ (irrelevant, controlling, dictatorial in its consistency, whatever).
3.Some believe that once a person has been saved, they will always be saved. Others believe a person can lose God's grace.
4.Some (such as the Jehovah's Witnesses) demand spiritual discipline of their members (proselytizing in that case), others don't.
5.Some understanding their church's belief to be the fullness of truth about their salvation some admit it's an uncertain thing.
6.Some accept an evolving understanding of sin, others do not.
7.Some tell believers to submit to the church's understanding of theology, others encourage innovation.
8.Some believe the truth about the path of salvation is evolving, some believe it fixed. Some say that it is different for each person – not the experience, but the expectations they are meant to meet.
I’m having trouble seeing how this is fundamental to whom God and Jesus are/is. Maybe if you can show me where in the Niece Creed (which I take as the foundation of all Christian belief – either form BTW so don’t feel constrained to either use the Western or Orthodox form) where any of this is it could help.
quote:
It is what I meant in a general sense, but I'd guess that in your church, after that general guidance, believers are left on their own as to what to do, perhaps with some suggestions of what to give up, often around Easter.
My denomination is the Episcopal Church of the United State of America. That church does give suggestions of things to give up (or do) in regards to fasting in Lent.
However, I was raised in a family which goes to many different churches (Southern Baptist, Methodist, Roman Catholic, Pentecostal) so that I have a tendency to talk to people outside of the Protestant faith in generalities.
The Roman Catholic Church and the Episcopal Church both give guidelines as to when to fast and what to do. The Baptist, Methodist, and Pentecostal are more general about when and how to fast. They all are looking more at Lent however, but they don’t limit fasting to just the times of Lent (or Advent), but when the believer feels that they need to spend some time getting closer to God.
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Sophia's Questions:
Maybe I can better understand where you are coming from if you'd tell me a few things.
quote:
Do you believe that the truth about our salvation evolves
No
quote:
or differs from person to person
No
quote:
and epoch to epoch?
Probably not but I'm not sure. Some very clever Christians say it does - or at least did BC.
quote:
Do you believe that the understanding of such things as sin (what it is and what things are sins) changes with time?
Yes, obviously.
quote:
If so, is it because God has changed the way he thinks about those things, or because we have done so?
The latter.
quote:
Do you believe that there is a common Apostolic understanding of the message they heard from Christ, or do you believe that they were in dispute? (not in specific instances, but in the faith)?
Mostly in agreement but often in dispute. We know they were, tradition and the New Testament record some of their disagreements.
quote:
If it's important to know what they thought about Christ's message spoken directly to them, do you think it's is conceivable that this Apostolic understanding of The Creator's message could have been preserved intact for 30 years (the remainder of their lifetimes)? What about 100 years?
Of course. And most obviously preserved in the New Testament, the bulk of which (maybe all) was written within the lifetimes of the Apostles.
quote:
At some point do you think it's possible that, especially given the relentless repetition of the notion that preserving this Truth was their greatest charge, the Truth could be widely enough understood that additions to it or subtractions from it could be easily identified as such?
No, not "easily", because humans are not easily capable of that sort of understanding.
quote:
Do you give any credence to the idea that the Holy Spirit could guide the church in both protection and understanding?
Yes of course.
quote:
If the latter, why would be in the interest of the Spirit to have our understanding change with time, and why would He encourage it?
I'm not sure that She does. I think the basis of the faith has remained the same. And is shared by all the churches - not just your one. We have in common what is essential, what differs is mostly (perhaps all) local or indifferent.
quote:
I believe that this Truth does not vary, and that it is known and knowable to us if we are children of a loving God.
Yes of course. But even so there are other things that churches do or teach that are not part of this "Truth" and often either inimical to it or irrelevant to it. All churches have erred, including both yours and mine.
quote:
And it will be accessible and knowable, in fullness, not in disparate and changing parts, until we all meet our Maker.
No! Not at all. It is not all accessible to us and even if it was we'd not be capable of appreciating it. Are we better accquantained with Jesus than John the Apostle? Then - in the presence of God - we will know as we are known. Do we know more than Paul? Now we "see through a glass darkly". Even Jesus himself was ignorant of some things the Father keeps to himself.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Are Protestants heretics? You might find some uncharitable Orthodox who would say that. But I would not do so. For one, I see the spirit of love and charity in Protestant communities. Were they generally unloving and uncharitable, by calling themselves Christian they would be slandering all faithful believers, and thus should be called heretics. That is not the case, and your hearts are pure, you are all my brothers and sisters in Christ, and were any of you with me I would treat you as such, and greet you with a kiss.
I feel the same for you. Thanks for taking the time to share this—I think it’s very important.
quote:
1.Where does Scripture say that there is a higher understanding of the truth available to us than that understood by the ones who kissed His feet and ate with Him?
2.Where does Scripture say that the life in Christ is one in which we find differing ideas of truth?
3.Where does it say that we are to seek truth outside the Church and it's understanding? There's a potent critique of sola scriptura, if that's the way you might choose to go, here, about halfway through under the subhead 'The Repository of Truth'
4.Where does Scripture tell us that it is acceptable for the understanding of theology and salvation to differ from person to person? Their life in Christ will differ, but where are we told to think different things about the foundation of it?
I’m not sola scriptura. I’m not sola tradition. I’m not sola Church. I’m not sola personal preference. I just desire to be sola God. I believe his Spirit is here with me, to guide me. I believe that I kiss his feet and eat with him and so do you, whenever you serve people around you or eat with good friends. Scripture doesn’t say that there will be differing ideas of truth. It’s just a fact—if two people read the same thing, they’ll come to different understandings of what it means. I simply don’t believe that the Apostles had it perfectly correct—but their understanding aids our own, just in the same way that we all aid each other.
quote:
Scant writings exist from the Apostles themselves, but hundreds of thousands of pages of writings exist from early Christians, many of them saints. You're going to find a deeper understanding than theirs?
I think they would encourage the idea themselves. To think that people had simply stopped searching and testing and settled for the understandings they themselves came to after only a few years would be very discouraging for them who tried to encourage the pursuit of truth and understanding.
quote:
Digory, you are conceding in the most explicit terms the mindset I have been most uncharitable about: the individual as the arbiter of Truth.
If you can't defend the foundations of it Biblically, perhaps you'd like to tell me, using reason, how you expect to find this ultimate understanding that exceeds that of the Apostles themselves.
Truth exists and is unchanging and unrelative.
We choose which understanding of Truth we will accept as true.
We ALL do.
quote:
A loving Creator would not burden us with the responsibility of finding the Truth for ourselves, He has made it possible that it be made known to us through all time, so that we can get on about what we are really here to do, become more like our Maker.
Jesus himself spoke in parables, leaving his listeners to figure it out for themselves what he meant. They must’ve had hundreds of different understandings of his cryptic stories and anecdotes, yet there was no place to go and check which understanding was correct.
I believe that we are most like our Maker when we pursue and wrestle with our understanding of him, and begin to allow him to reveal himself to us as he wishes to do.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I'm withdrawing from the thread, guys, for the same reason as Ruth. Plus it's just so exhausting sifting through the SQ posts looking for wheat amongst the chaff. At my age, you need to know your limits.
andreas1984, my friend, by comparison your posts are models of conciseness and precision. SQ, you should listen to your wife.
(Heads for darkened room. Maybe I need Psyduck's missing Babel fish? Grandchildren are so much more fun ...)
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Posted by Sopha's Questions: quote:
...everyone here already agrees on the general truth.
Not true.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dobbo
Shipmate
# 5850
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Hi Dobbo,
Then you go on to cite a bishop of the Greek church
The article actually mentions the Archbishop of North and South America representing over 2 million Orthodox
I am at least prepared to give the person his place in the heirarchy despite his statements
quote:
who has said that snake handling and poison drinking are more cultish than they are part of the Christian tradition.
So I take it Paul falls into the cult category as well (Acts 28)
quote:
No Orthodox priest would say that the Pentecostal church is 'Christ's Church' because – you guessed it – the Church is both spiritual and manifest, and always has been.
But as I aluded to earlier the Church is defined by Christ's redemptive work (ie without His death there would be no church) and as such it is made up of a redeemed people rather than an institutionalised organisation.
quote:
If you think that the faith need only be understood so generally that there is no room for excluding anyone who, “saith, lord, lord”, then why are you here, or interested in anything but general truth? If no deeper or purer understanding of salvation and Christian life to that end exists conspicuously, and is in any case unnecessary, then any time you spend here is time wasted, it should be spent on your knees in repentance and prayer, and on working out your salvation with fear and trembling. Because everyone here already agrees on the general truth. If that is all that is necessary, a lot of the discussion on this site is in no way beneficial to us in regard to salvation. Anything aside from ___how to live it___ is hot air.
I am here because I learn from people that post - I do not have to go back to a priest to check out what I am entitled to post (with respect to you and baptism), Which you never truly answered - at least I know where protestants and Roman Catholics believe with respect to children that die without being baptized are. You did not state the Orthodox position.
I think it is you who wastes your time as if you believe have the fulness of truth then there is no point in being here - because if you are just wanting to get converts to the Orthodox faith then you are breaking one of the commandments.
It is interesting that you do not seem to want to learn from others so much so that people like Ruth and Barnabas decide to withdraw from the discussion.
My issue is how church has any influence over salvation - "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy" Romans 9 v 15 - Salvation is of the Lord and no earthly organisation has a monopoly on it.
--------------------
I'm holding out for Grace......, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity
Bono
Posts: 395 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
St. S of S,
Thanks for your guidance here, and for your friendly (and gentle) suggestions about UBB. And thanks to everyone else as well, this is a thoughtful forum.
I don't think I can add anything else to this discussion than I've said already, or that can't be said better by someone else.
With that in mind, here is a link to Our Life in Christ, an Orthodox radio ministry. They have shows archived, and the subject of each show is listed. You can burn them to CD, each show is about 40 minutes. There are about 50 shows in the archive.
Here is a link to a site with articles on pretty much everything related to Orthodox Christianity, fatheralexander.org
And if anyone writing or reading has any questions about the faith they can contact Fr. John McCuen, my spiritual father, at holy_archangels@cox.net
Peace be with you,
SQ
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Why do I feel as if one of Jehovah's witnesses has just walked away from my door?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
I feel a sort of unsettled loss...
No wait, that was just indigestion.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
