Recent Posts

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
61
Religious Topics / Re: Early Fathers and Saints "hateful" writings ?
« Last post by Czar Lazar on Today at 12:14:45 AM »
^ My thoughts

Either Jesus is right and the Church is right and everything else is bull crap or it isn't.
The Church Fathers didn't mince words on what they thought was right and even to this day the ones that are declared saints in recent memory don't mince words either. This is not an ancient phenomenon, it is a holy one.

We need to be straight-forward, but not necessarily use the same rhetoric.  Times have changed.  The rhetoric is today associated with the actions attached to them.  Back then, it was not.  St. John Chrysostom was very clear of the spiritual nature of the rhetoric, and that to "hate" was to hate not the person, but the demons who are causing the person to do this.  This same rhetoric has been misused and abused later as an incitement to violence, and I think we should learn from this and avoid it.  If "meat" causes a brother to offend, we shouldn't eat it.  We can teach the same condemnations St. John Chrysostom taught in a way translated into the sensibilities of time today.

I disagree. Time are not that changed in this regard.
We should take the lesson of the Holy Fathers.
Stand against evil and make our stand clear.
62
Lord, have mercy!
63
No, my point makes my point valid.

Hearsay isn't valid in court.
64
Religious Topics / Re: Early Fathers and Saints "hateful" writings ?
« Last post by minasoliman on Today at 12:12:14 AM »
^ My thoughts

Either Jesus is right and the Church is right and everything else is bull crap or it isn't.
The Church Fathers didn't mince words on what they thought was right and even to this day the ones that are declared saints in recent memory don't mince words either. This is not an ancient phenomenon, it is a holy one.

We need to be straight-forward, but not necessarily use the same rhetoric.  Times have changed.  The rhetoric is today associated with the actions attached to them.  Back then, it was not.  St. John Chrysostom was very clear of the spiritual nature of the rhetoric, and that to "hate" was to hate not the person, but the demons who are causing the person to do this.  This same rhetoric has been misused and abused later as an incitement to violence, and I think we should learn from this and avoid it.  If "meat" causes a brother to offend, we shouldn't eat it.  We can teach the same condemnations St. John Chrysostom taught in a way translated into the sensibilities of time today.
65
Religious Topics / Re: Early Fathers and Saints "hateful" writings ?
« Last post by biro on Today at 12:11:15 AM »
No, my point makes my point valid.
66
I read that a couple of these churches had substandard wiring which may be the cause.  But, it is just easier to blame everything on white racists, isn't it?

Especially after an actual self-proclaimed white racist murdered nine people in a historic African-American church, and every troll on Facebook and Twitter wet themselves when lots of people got rid of the Confederate flag. I'm sure there are no violent white racists. These things are just a coincidence.
67
Raylight, read this:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.XVIII.html

This is by St. John Chrysostom also.  It will give you a perspective that this is all rhetoric, different from what is done today.  We do not use the same rhetoric, but this should sufficiently show St. John Chrysostom was no anti-semite.  Would a Nazi say this?

On the politics section of this board, yes.

There are no Zoroastrians in the Talmud, either.

Sometimes I wonder who's posting while drunk and who just believes everything they read.

Use the Google Machine. Anyway, I think my comment demonstrates the point clearly. It's called rhetoric...

I've actually read the Talmud.

Your comment doesn't demonstrate a thing.

There are many academic papers published which show the Sassanian and Zoroastrian influences on the Talmud. Again, readily available via the Google Machine.

There are many pseudohistoric claims and horrible translations floating around. Just because something is on Google doesn't make it true.

Again, I actually read the Talmud.

So did I. Muslims and Atheists read the Bible. That doesn't make your point valid. Neither does it mine, I suppose. Yet, those articles exist as can be objectively verified via the Google Machine.
68
Religious Topics / Re: Early Fathers and Saints "hateful" writings ?
« Last post by biro on Today at 12:05:28 AM »
Raylight, read this:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.XVIII.html

This is by St. John Chrysostom also.  It will give you a perspective that this is all rhetoric, different from what is done today.  We do not use the same rhetoric, but this should sufficiently show St. John Chrysostom was no anti-semite.  Would a Nazi say this?

On the politics section of this board, yes.

There are no Zoroastrians in the Talmud, either.

Sometimes I wonder who's posting while drunk and who just believes everything they read.

Use the Google Machine. Anyway, I think my comment demonstrates the point clearly. It's called rhetoric...

I've actually read the Talmud.

Your comment doesn't demonstrate a thing.

There are many academic papers published which show the Sassanian and Zoroastrian influences on the Talmud. Again, readily available via the Google Machine.

There are many pseudohistoric claims and horrible translations floating around. Just because something is on Google doesn't make it true.

Again, I actually read the Talmud.
69
Religious Topics / Re: Early Fathers and Saints "hateful" writings ?
« Last post by Czar Lazar on Today at 12:03:40 AM »
That same St. John Chrysostom said that a sermon is not a sermon if it doesn't make people's sensibilities uncomfortable. Sermons are controversial, just as the Gospel is. If there is no controversy in the teaching of the Church, there is no Gospel.

What is exactly good in the following:


" John Chrysostom (344-407 A.D.) – One of the "greatest" of church fathers; known as "The Golden Mouthed." A missionary preacher famous for his sermons and addresses.

Quote
The synagogue is worse than a brothel…it is the den of scoundrels and the repair of wild beasts…the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults…the refuge of brigands and dabauchees, and the cavern of devils. It is a criminal assembly of Jews…a place of meeting for the assassins of Christ… a house worse than a drinking shop…a den of thieves, a house of ill fame, a dwelling of iniquity, the refuge of devils, a gulf and a abyss of perdition."…"I would say the same things about their souls… As for me, I hate the synagogue…I hate the Jews for the same reason. "


What about this hateful piece of writing :

Quote
" St. Augustine (c. 354-430 A.D.), Confessions, 12.14

How hateful to me are the enemies of your Scripture! How I wish that you would slay them (the Jews) with your two-edged sword, so that there should be none to oppose your word! Gladly would I have them die to themselves and live to you! "

I'd say the same thing about the Synagogues and the Rabbis. There's nothing anti-Semitic there. The Rabbis invalidate the Torah through the Zoroastrian magic found in the Talmud.

I disagree. But things now are clearer.

I think you have to view these quotes in the context of the fact that these were people whose souls would be lost to the evil one. It was and is literally a battle against evil for the souls of man. A battle that I think we have sadly watered down to alot of "brotherhood and unity" talk instead of just saying the truth.

Using very harmful words is not a good way of telling the truth or trying to convince someone of something, because in today's world, that usually turn the other person into defensive mode, which will block any logic, understanding, and any chance of convincing.

Sometimes you just need to tell it like it is. It's not about being hateful, it's about being frank about what the issues are.

^ My thoughts

Either Jesus is right and the Church is right and everything else is bull crap or it isn't.
The Church Fathers didn't mince words on what they thought was right and even to this day the ones that are declared saints in recent memory don't mince words either. This is not an ancient phenomenon, it is a holy one.
70
Does anyone have any statistics concerning how many Catholics convert to Orthodoxy, and how many of them were GC/OC?

Not sure, this is all I could find:

"researcher Alexey D. Krindach 37 percent of the priests in The Orthodox Church in America are Protestant converts, and more than three-quarters of the seminary students at two of the largest Orthodox seminaries are former Protestants."

"According to a 2006 study by the National Council of Churches, the fastest growing major church in the United States is neither Protestant nor Catholic. It is Eastern Orthodox. "

http://ministrytodaymag.com/display.php?id=15101
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »