icons again...

[LBK]

Those who do not venerate Christ in His images will never do so when He appears in person.

Priceless! A pearl among the dross! Venerating icons is not about culture, it's about honoring God and affirming His Incarnation.

[вєликаго]

Orthodoxy has made stuff necessary that really isn't and all the argument for it are bollocks.

Yeah, that wacky St. John of Damascus, writing his treatises for fun... 

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/johndamascus-images.asp

Watch your mouth.

Thanks for sharing this. I hope the Original Poster takes the time to look at it.

[yeshuaisiam]

Just be sure if you do venerate/kiss an icon of our savior, that you really mean it.   Otherwise.... Judas comes to mind.

I do not kiss or venerate icons (often) myself, but I absolutely hold respect for the saints, personages, angels, or our God they depict.   I struggle with this subject as well.  It's like I can't get my head around it.

If my own mind can't get around it, and I'm not all there, I refrain in fear of a deceiving veneration.

Interestingly, when I witnessed a weeping icon, I did venerate that in fullness.

[Jason.Wike]

Those who do not venerate Christ in His images will never do so when He appears in person.

This is non-sense and the kind of thing that makes it worse for me. Its a fallacy.

The real Image of Christ is in living people not planks of wood or some half baked theology of "windows to heaven" ripped off of some Hellenistic philosophy.

[Jason.Wike]

Yep, it is a religious action formed by the culture it was in. I'm not really sure why that matters. Refusing to practice the faith because you don't like the culture it is expressed through would be phyletism.

Because pretending to be a Roman has nothing to do with being a Christian, yet it is not optional to believe in venerating icons or doing the act. Orthodoxy has made stuff necessary that really isn't and all the argument for it are bollocks.

But being a Roman does have to do with being a Christian because that is the historical reality. Trying to find the "pure" Christianity by divorcing the religion from all of the historical, political or cultural factors that has shaped it is naive and pointless. Unless you can demonstrate that icon veneration is contrary to some inherent Christian principle, there is no reason to not do it other than YOUR OWN cultural chauvinism.

I mean, if there was something inherently against icon veneration in American culture then some economy could be called for. And speaking as an American who goes to a 1/3rd American convert parish, there simply isn't. Judging by your new faith tag, this seems more of a front for your apostasy.

Apostasy? I'm a Christian, I'm just not buying this thing anymore. Also I was never baptized so I can't be called an 'apostate'.

[biro]

Those who do not venerate Christ in His images will never do so when He appears in person.

This is non-sense and the kind of thing that makes it worse for me. Its a fallacy.

The real Image of Christ is in living people not planks of wood or some half baked theology of "windows to heaven" ripped off of some Hellenistic philosophy.

Uh-oh, here we go.

 

[Jason.Wike]

Those who do not venerate Christ in His images will never do so when He appears in person.

This is non-sense and the kind of thing that makes it worse for me. Its a fallacy.

The real Image of Christ is in living people not planks of wood or some half baked theology of "windows to heaven" ripped off of some Hellenistic philosophy.

Uh-oh, here we go.

 

Well, want do you want when people keep making dictums that are logic fallacies like "If you won't do x, you won't do y" or "If you don't do x, you deny x?" They're non-sense but people keep spouting them like they are logical progressions of ideas and it does nothing but make me start to detest icons apart from the issue of venerating them.

[вєликаго]

Those who do not venerate Christ in His images will never do so when He appears in person.

This is non-sense and the kind of thing that makes it worse for me. Its a fallacy.

The real Image of Christ is in living people not planks of wood or some half baked theology of "windows to heaven" ripped off of some Hellenistic philosophy.

Uh-oh, here we go.

 

Well, want do you want when people keep making dictums that are logic fallacies like "If you won't do x, you won't do y" or "If you don't do x, you deny x?" They're non-sense but people keep spouting them like they are logical progressions of ideas and it does nothing but make me start to detest icons apart from the issue of venerating them.

I can totally sympathize with you on this. All the same, I do think you seem to misunderstand ikons. I humble request you at least try and respect other peoples beliefs.

[HouseOfGod]

Those who do not venerate Christ in His images will never do so when He appears in person.

This is non-sense and the kind of thing that makes it worse for me. Its a fallacy.

The real Image of Christ is in living people not planks of wood or some half baked theology of "windows to heaven" ripped off of some Hellenistic philosophy.

Uh-oh, here we go.

 

Well, want do you want when people keep making dictums that are logic fallacies like "If you won't do x, you won't do y" or "If you don't do x, you deny x?" They're non-sense but people keep spouting them like they are logical progressions of ideas and it does nothing but make me start to detest icons apart from the issue of venerating them.

Oh dear, I do hope this conversation is not the reason your signature indicates that you have left the forum. Lord, have mercy. I hope and pray that things get better for you, Jason.

[genesisone]

Most people here in this thread don't seem to have a problem with the concept of respecting Christ and the Saints. They don't seem to have a problem with the existence of icons. Nor do I think any would blatantly disrespect an icon. My question to those who have a problem with the traditional Orthodox manner of showing honour to Christ and His Saints (i.e. bowing and kissing): what is your suggestion for showing honour and respect (in other words, veneration) in this situation?

[Schultz]

Yep, it is a religious action formed by the culture it was in. I'm not really sure why that matters. Refusing to practice the faith because you don't like the culture it is expressed through would be phyletism.

Because pretending to be a Roman has nothing to do with being a Christian, yet it is not optional to believe in venerating icons or doing the act. Orthodoxy has made stuff necessary that really isn't and all the argument for it are bollocks.

But being a Roman does have to do with being a Christian because that is the historical reality. Trying to find the "pure" Christianity by divorcing the religion from all of the historical, political or cultural factors that has shaped it is naive and pointless. Unless you can demonstrate that icon veneration is contrary to some inherent Christian principle, there is no reason to not do it other than YOUR OWN cultural chauvinism.

I mean, if there was something inherently against icon veneration in American culture then some economy could be called for. And speaking as an American who goes to a 1/3rd American convert parish, there simply isn't. Judging by your new faith tag, this seems more of a front for your apostasy.

Apostasy? I'm a Christian, I'm just not buying this thing anymore. Also I was never baptized so I can't be called an 'apostate'.

You can't really be called a Christian, either.

[Jason.Wike]

Yep, it is a religious action formed by the culture it was in. I'm not really sure why that matters. Refusing to practice the faith because you don't like the culture it is expressed through would be phyletism.

Because pretending to be a Roman has nothing to do with being a Christian, yet it is not optional to believe in venerating icons or doing the act. Orthodoxy has made stuff necessary that really isn't and all the argument for it are bollocks.

But being a Roman does have to do with being a Christian because that is the historical reality. Trying to find the "pure" Christianity by divorcing the religion from all of the historical, political or cultural factors that has shaped it is naive and pointless. Unless you can demonstrate that icon veneration is contrary to some inherent Christian principle, there is no reason to not do it other than YOUR OWN cultural chauvinism.

I mean, if there was something inherently against icon veneration in American culture then some economy could be called for. And speaking as an American who goes to a 1/3rd American convert parish, there simply isn't. Judging by your new faith tag, this seems more of a front for your apostasy.

Apostasy? I'm a Christian, I'm just not buying this thing anymore. Also I was never baptized so I can't be called an 'apostate'.

You can't really be called a Christian, either.

I'm still getting responses in my inbox. Postponing baptism till no one knows when isn't Christian either.

[NicholasMyra]

Hey Jason,

Can you tell us which hellenistic philosophy is being ripped off with icon veneration, and where we can find some philosophical texts that refer to it?

Also, I thought you said it was a Roman practice. Is it just Roman, or is it Hellenistic? And you never addressed my posts on page 1.

[biro]

There were icons in the Jewish Temple. I'm pretty sure the Orthodox Jews of the time resisted Hellenization, so if anything was continued, it was Jewish practice. And since God told the Israelites to make the Ark of the Covenant and the Temple, I'm fine with it.

[NicholasMyra]

There were icons in the Jewish Temple. I'm pretty sure the Orthodox Jews of the time resisted Hellenization, so if anything was continued, it was Jewish practice. And since God told the Israelites to make the Ark of the Covenant and the Temple, I'm fine with it.

Hellenization is bad. Burn your astrolabes.

[orthonorm]

Those who do not venerate Christ in His images will never do so when He appears in person.

Priceless! A pearl among the dross! Venerating icons is not about culture, it's about honoring God and affirming His Incarnation.

Pithy sure (Shanghaiski's post, though I do enjoy yours as I like a mixed metaphor as much as the next guy). Accurate, absolutely not.

I know your fetish for icons but do you really believe that while not sufficient for salvation (or maybe your fetishism is so great that you could spin it that way), the veneration of an icon is a necessary condition for salvation? (To use the pallid, non-cryptic language of this board.)

(Enjoy.)

[orthonorm]

There were icons in the Jewish Temple. I'm pretty sure the Orthodox Jews of the time resisted Hellenization, so if anything was continued, it was Jewish practice. And since God told the Israelites to make the Ark of the Covenant and the Temple, I'm fine with it.

Hellenization is bad. Burn your astrolabes.

Another thing Greek it took Arabs to perfect.

[NicholasMyra]

There were icons in the Jewish Temple. I'm pretty sure the Orthodox Jews of the time resisted Hellenization, so if anything was continued, it was Jewish practice. And since God told the Israelites to make the Ark of the Covenant and the Temple, I'm fine with it.

Hellenization is bad. Burn your astrolabes.

Another thing Greek it took Arabs to perfect.

With the help of Alexandrian Hellenized Jews:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_Hebrew_astrolabe.jpg

[orthonorm]

There were icons in the Jewish Temple. I'm pretty sure the Orthodox Jews of the time resisted Hellenization, so if anything was continued, it was Jewish practice. And since God told the Israelites to make the Ark of the Covenant and the Temple, I'm fine with it.

Hellenization is bad. Burn your astrolabes.

Another thing Greek it took Arabs to perfect.

With the help of Alexandrian Hellenized Jews:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_Hebrew_astrolabe.jpg

Zionist propaganda.

[akimori makoto]

Hey Jason,

Can you tell us which hellenistic philosophy is being ripped off with icon veneration, and where we can find some philosophical texts that refer to it?

Also, I thought you said it was a Roman practice. Is it just Roman, or is it Hellenistic? And you never addressed my posts on page 1.

He wouldn't answer my much simpler and twice-iterated question, so I shall wish you good luck with this endeavour, sir.

[Tgebar]

Sometimes putting away the old man means doing or accepting something that you cannot reconcile rationally, emotionally, or physically. We can't measure the validity of everything by how well it jives with our constructed personas.

[katherineofdixie]

Sometimes putting away the old man means doing or accepting something that you cannot reconcile rationally, emotionally, or physically. We can't measure the validity of everything by how well it jives with our constructed personas.

Or with our preconceived ideas, pet theories and personal biases.

Well said.

[Michał Kalina]

Just be sure if you do venerate/kiss an icon of our savior, that you really mean it.   Otherwise.... Judas comes to mind.

I do not kiss or venerate icons (often) myself, but I absolutely hold respect for the saints, personages, angels, or our God they depict.   I struggle with this subject as well.  It's like I can't get my head around it.

If my own mind can't get around it, and I'm not all there, I refrain in fear of a deceiving veneration.

Interestingly, when I witnessed a weeping icon, I did venerate that in fullness.

So you venerated the magic around the icon, not the icon itself...

[HouseOfGod]

Just be sure if you do venerate/kiss an icon of our savior, that you really mean it.   Otherwise.... Judas comes to mind.

I do not kiss or venerate icons (often) myself, but I absolutely hold respect for the saints, personages, angels, or our God they depict.   I struggle with this subject as well.  It's like I can't get my head around it.

If my own mind can't get around it, and I'm not all there, I refrain in fear of a deceiving veneration.

Interestingly, when I witnessed a weeping icon, I did venerate that in fullness.

So you venerated the magic around the icon, not the icon itself...

I'd second that point

[augustin717]

Why does the command against graven images say not to make idols of things "in the waters below"?

Because Almighty God in his great wisdom knew that one day American Evangelicals would plaster tacky Jesus Fishes all over their cars.

Priceless

[ialmisry]

Those who do not venerate Christ in His images will never do so when He appears in person.

This is non-sense and the kind of thing that makes it worse for me. Its a fallacy.

The real Image of Christ is in living people not planks of wood or some half baked theology of "windows to heaven" ripped off of some Hellenistic philosophy.

you wouldn't mind quoting that Hellenistic philosophy on that, would you?  (a trick question.  I know you can't).

So, you won't give Christ the honor He gave to Caesar?

[ialmisry]

Yep, it is a religious action formed by the culture it was in. I'm not really sure why that matters. Refusing to practice the faith because you don't like the culture it is expressed through would be phyletism.

Because pretending to be a Roman has nothing to do with being a Christian, yet it is not optional to believe in venerating icons or doing the act. Orthodoxy has made stuff necessary that really isn't and all the argument for it are bollocks.

But being a Roman does have to do with being a Christian because that is the historical reality. Trying to find the "pure" Christianity by divorcing the religion from all of the historical, political or cultural factors that has shaped it is naive and pointless. Unless you can demonstrate that icon veneration is contrary to some inherent Christian principle, there is no reason to not do it other than YOUR OWN cultural chauvinism.

I mean, if there was something inherently against icon veneration in American culture then some economy could be called for. And speaking as an American who goes to a 1/3rd American convert parish, there simply isn't. Judging by your new faith tag, this seems more of a front for your apostasy.

Apostasy? I'm a Christian, I'm just not buying this thing anymore. Also I was never baptized so I can't be called an 'apostate'.

If you were never baptized, you can't even claim to be Christian.

[ialmisry]

Venerating icons is just way too foreign for me and I can't do it anymore. I've been trying to go to church now that I have a lighter schedule but it just stops me from going. I know people will dismiss this as "Protestant" influence but no, its not, I wasn't raised a Protestant and I can count the number of times I've been in a Protestant church on my hands. Its just foreign to me as a human. I've never kissed a picture of a family member or any of the other bizarre examples people give (sorry if you do that all the time, but the vast majority of people don't). And nothing I've seen in defense of this has convinced me it is important to venerate them.

Probably everything I've seen for it was from Romans that say things that are not applicable to modern people, and which come from human reasoning such as "Everyone gives honor to images of the Emperors" which don't apply today, and also introduce practices by way of reasoning rather than actually being Christ's instruction handed down.

The Christians that were outside Imperial influence like the Assyrians don't do it, and the claim that it is because Muslims stopped them is non-sense as their Catholic, OO and EO neighbors were not stopped. In other places like the British Isles the only icons that ever existed were in a few priceless manuscripts that certainly no one venerated, and they got along just fine. Its just Roman, and in the end it is foreign to me and I can't do it anymore.

The Syriac Orthodox and the Antiochian Orthodox, living side by side with the Nestorians, outside the Empire of the Romans, did and do. And yes, they were stopped by the Muslims, or rather, the Muslims tried to stop it.  St. John of Damascus, the great defender on the Holy Images, lived his entire life in the caliphate, and was persecuted for defending the icons.

And all of the New Testament was from the world of the Romans.  So you are out of luck, render unto Caesar and all.

And the Nestorians used to venerate them, as can be shown by their own records.  Further, the Nestorians still venerate the Cross.

[Jason.Wike]

Yep, it is a religious action formed by the culture it was in. I'm not really sure why that matters. Refusing to practice the faith because you don't like the culture it is expressed through would be phyletism.

Because pretending to be a Roman has nothing to do with being a Christian, yet it is not optional to believe in venerating icons or doing the act. Orthodoxy has made stuff necessary that really isn't and all the argument for it are bollocks.

But being a Roman does have to do with being a Christian because that is the historical reality. Trying to find the "pure" Christianity by divorcing the religion from all of the historical, political or cultural factors that has shaped it is naive and pointless. Unless you can demonstrate that icon veneration is contrary to some inherent Christian principle, there is no reason to not do it other than YOUR OWN cultural chauvinism.

I mean, if there was something inherently against icon veneration in American culture then some economy could be called for. And speaking as an American who goes to a 1/3rd American convert parish, there simply isn't. Judging by your new faith tag, this seems more of a front for your apostasy.

Apostasy? I'm a Christian, I'm just not buying this thing anymore. Also I was never baptized so I can't be called an 'apostate'.

If you were never baptized, you can't even claim to be Christian.

Sorry, you and the other poster that have decided I'm not Christian are wrong. If someone desires to be baptized and are kept from it, they are counted as Christian according to all the church fathers. You can't undo my faith by decree. You really think you can say all the non-stop prayer I have made to god for years is meaningless and I am not Christian - I'm never stepping back in an Orthodox church again, it is the church of hell. That's my nice response.

 40 days of moderation - MK.

[William]

Yep, it is a religious action formed by the culture it was in. I'm not really sure why that matters. Refusing to practice the faith because you don't like the culture it is expressed through would be phyletism.

Because pretending to be a Roman has nothing to do with being a Christian, yet it is not optional to believe in venerating icons or doing the act. Orthodoxy has made stuff necessary that really isn't and all the argument for it are bollocks.

But being a Roman does have to do with being a Christian because that is the historical reality. Trying to find the "pure" Christianity by divorcing the religion from all of the historical, political or cultural factors that has shaped it is naive and pointless. Unless you can demonstrate that icon veneration is contrary to some inherent Christian principle, there is no reason to not do it other than YOUR OWN cultural chauvinism.

I mean, if there was something inherently against icon veneration in American culture then some economy could be called for. And speaking as an American who goes to a 1/3rd American convert parish, there simply isn't. Judging by your new faith tag, this seems more of a front for your apostasy.

Apostasy? I'm a Christian, I'm just not buying this thing anymore. Also I was never baptized so I can't be called an 'apostate'.

If you were never baptized, you can't even claim to be Christian.

Sorry, you and the other poster that have decided I'm not Christian are wrong. If someone desires to be baptized and are kept from it, they are counted as Christian according to all the church fathers. You can't undo my faith by decree. You really think you can say all the non-stop prayer I have made to god for years is meaningless and I am not Christian - I'm never stepping back in an Orthodox church again, it is the church of hell. That's my nice response.

Anyone who would say that is definitely not a Christian.

[SolEX01]

Sorry, you and the other poster that have decided I'm not Christian are wrong. If someone desires to be baptized and are kept from it, they are counted as Christian according to all the church fathers. You can't undo my faith by decree. You really think you can say all the non-stop prayer I have made to god for years is meaningless and I am not Christian - I'm never stepping back in an Orthodox church again, it is the church of hell. That's my nice response.

How can you be Christian without baptism?  Maybe I missed it somewhere?  And why the gall towards the Orthodox Church?  How have you been offended by the Church?

[Jason.Wike]

Sorry, you and the other poster that have decided I'm not Christian are wrong. If someone desires to be baptized and are kept from it, they are counted as Christian according to all the church fathers. You can't undo my faith by decree. You really think you can say all the non-stop prayer I have made to god for years is meaningless and I am not Christian - I'm never stepping back in an Orthodox church again, it is the church of hell. That's my nice response.

How can you be Christian without baptism?  Maybe I missed it somewhere?  And why the gall towards the Orthodox Church?  How have you been offended by the Church?

Are catechumens and those desiring baptism not Christian? And the gall is because of the idea you guys have that you can declare someone not Christian because they're not baptised, and basically saying their entire life and soul is a sham, - especially when the Orthodox church puts zero urgency on actually baptizing people.

[orthonorm]

Sorry, you and the other poster that have decided I'm not Christian are wrong. If someone desires to be baptized and are kept from it, they are counted as Christian according to all the church fathers. You can't undo my faith by decree. You really think you can say all the non-stop prayer I have made to god for years is meaningless and I am not Christian - I'm never stepping back in an Orthodox church again, it is the church of hell. That's my nice response.

How can you be Christian without baptism?  Maybe I missed it somewhere?  And why the gall towards the Orthodox Church?  How have you been offended by the Church?

I dunno about the Church but I could see how he could take offense by some of idiotic comments in this thread and others.

Jason, ask yourself sincerely, if threads like these have painted your view of the OC, if so, quit reading this place for a while. The piety and stupidity around here will kill nearly anyone.

Best of luck Jason.  

[SolEX01]

Sorry, you and the other poster that have decided I'm not Christian are wrong. If someone desires to be baptized and are kept from it, they are counted as Christian according to all the church fathers. You can't undo my faith by decree. You really think you can say all the non-stop prayer I have made to god for years is meaningless and I am not Christian - I'm never stepping back in an Orthodox church again, it is the church of hell. That's my nice response.

How can you be Christian without baptism?  Maybe I missed it somewhere?  And why the gall towards the Orthodox Church?  How have you been offended by the Church?

Are catechumens and those desiring baptism not Christian?

An appropriate analogy: If I go to college and drop out, can I call myself college educated?  I don't have a diploma.

And the gall is because of the idea you guys have that you can declare someone not Christian because they're not baptised,

If I became a cathechumen, I expect to be baptized.  If I stop being a cathechumen, I stop the path to baptism and return to the state I was before becoming a cathecumen.  I can't call myself a Christian until I've buried my old self and renewed myself through Baptism, Chrismation and Communion.

and basically saying their entire life and soul is a sham,

Your life and soul are not shams.  You're being hard on yourself.

- especially when the Orthodox church puts zero urgency on actually baptizing people.

Baptism is a serious thing and the Church wants to make sure that cathecumens are properly prepared.  Another analogy: I buy a car; I don't receive the cleaned and prepped car until the financing has been approved and the car has been paid for.

The analogies have their focus on preparation which is what being a cathecumen is about.  I don't know if icons are what caused you to stop being a cathecumen; keep in mind that veneration of icons is a fundamental tenet of the Orthodox Church.  Other Christian denominations do not use icons or deemphasize them.  I don't know what others have said on this forum; do not let this forum inoculate you from Christ.

[ialmisry]

Yep, it is a religious action formed by the culture it was in. I'm not really sure why that matters. Refusing to practice the faith because you don't like the culture it is expressed through would be phyletism.

Because pretending to be a Roman has nothing to do with being a Christian, yet it is not optional to believe in venerating icons or doing the act. Orthodoxy has made stuff necessary that really isn't and all the argument for it are bollocks.

But being a Roman does have to do with being a Christian because that is the historical reality. Trying to find the "pure" Christianity by divorcing the religion from all of the historical, political or cultural factors that has shaped it is naive and pointless. Unless you can demonstrate that icon veneration is contrary to some inherent Christian principle, there is no reason to not do it other than YOUR OWN cultural chauvinism.

I mean, if there was something inherently against icon veneration in American culture then some economy could be called for. And speaking as an American who goes to a 1/3rd American convert parish, there simply isn't. Judging by your new faith tag, this seems more of a front for your apostasy.

Apostasy? I'm a Christian, I'm just not buying this thing anymore. Also I was never baptized so I can't be called an 'apostate'.

If you were never baptized, you can't even claim to be Christian.

Sorry, you and the other poster that have decided I'm not Christian are wrong.

You are not in the Church-or for that matter, any Church-and hence have no say in the matter. You can claim you are Napoleon for what it matters.

If someone desires to be baptized and are kept from it, they are counted as Christian according to all the church fathers.

but, as you make clear, that is not your situation.

You can't undo my faith by decree.

nothing evidently to undo.

You really think you can say all the non-stop prayer I have made to god for years is meaningless and I am not Christian - I'm never stepping back in an Orthodox church again, it is the church of hell. That's my nice response.

nicely proving that your non-stop prayer was meaningless.

[ialmisry]

Sorry, you and the other poster that have decided I'm not Christian are wrong. If someone desires to be baptized and are kept from it, they are counted as Christian according to all the church fathers. You can't undo my faith by decree. You really think you can say all the non-stop prayer I have made to god for years is meaningless and I am not Christian - I'm never stepping back in an Orthodox church again, it is the church of hell. That's my nice response.

How can you be Christian without baptism?  Maybe I missed it somewhere?  And why the gall towards the Orthodox Church?  How have you been offended by the Church?

Are catechumens and those desiring baptism not Christian? And the gall is because of the idea you guys have that you can declare someone not Christian because they're not baptised, and basically saying their entire life and soul is a sham, - especially when the Orthodox church puts zero urgency on actually baptizing people.

Don't know what you are talking about: three months wait for my sons' baptism was a long one.

[Jason.Wike]

Let's see: I went to church semi-regularly for two years as a catechumen. I started missing church with economia a year ago because of school and a new job that I desperately needed to do. After the first month baptism, or any catechism or anything at all was never mentioned again. Its great that your son was baptized.

but, as you make clear, that is not your situation.

How? I still desire baptism, I just don't believe the things you guys believe is actually Christianity.

As for my invective it is no more than what your Saints and you yourselves say about churches you claim are false. So if that makes me not Christian you guys are SOL hypocrites.

[SolEX01]

Let's see: I went to church semi-regularly for two years as a catechumen. I started missing church with economia a year ago because of school and a new job that I desperately needed to do. After the first month baptism, or any catechism or anything at all was never mentioned again.

Did you fall off the face of the earth (or to put it in better terms, lose contact with your church?  your Priest?)?

How? I still desire baptism, I just don't believe the things you guys believe is actually Christianity.

Reciting the Nicene Creed as a piece of literature is one thing; you have to recite the Nicene Creed at Baptism on the path to becoming a Christian.

As for my invective it is no more than what your Saints and you yourselves say about churches you claim are false. So if that makes me not Christian you guys are SOL hypocrites.

May God Bless You.

[Michał Kalina]

Thread locked indefinitely.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Faith Issues (Moderator: Michał Kalina) > Topic: icons again...