OrthodoxChristianity.net
January 29, 2015, 10:45:56 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
 61 
 on: Today at 07:07:55 PM 
Started by Rhinosaur - Last post by LenInSebastopol
Wonder why the word "Ashkenazi" has the word 'nazi' in it?

 62 
 on: Today at 07:06:07 PM 
Started by Keble - Last post by Mor Ephrem
I'm not going anywhere near "virginity remained inviolate" if you intend that in some sort of miraculous sense. There's nothing about the word "virginity" that makes talking about "remained virgin during" a coherent statement. If you want to say she never ever knew Joseph or anyone else, well, OK, there's nothing miraculous about that, but I reserve judgement.

"Remained virgin during" may not be coherent to us because we have largely moved away from a model of "virginity" that emphasises the physical "seal", but that is what is being spoken about in the patristic teachings, hymned in the parallels between the virginal womb and the empty tomb from which Christ emerged without breaking the seals, etc.  Such teachings are at least as much the common heritage of Anglicanism as the Chrysostom Liturgy.   
The reason we've moved away from it is because it's a fallacy. Not all women's hymens are broken during sex.

OK, but is it a fallacy people back then would've known for sure was a fallacy?  There are places in the world today--even in the US--where people do not know this and live and act accordingly, so I wouldn't be shocked if people were like that two thousand years ago.  So what's a God to do?

Not enshrine fallacious thinking in doctrinal form?

Congratulations, we don't know who Jesus' daddy is anymore. 

 63 
 on: Today at 07:05:07 PM 
Started by eddybear - Last post by LenInSebastopol
Don't think, go!

Wrote the young whipper-snapper!

EB, I know what you mean, but the young-whipper snapper does have a point, though probably minor.  Cheesy
One can talk one's self out of much. Make sure your wife is comfortable, safe and able to do well for the two to three hours you will be gone.  I can almost promise that on your return she will see a gleam in your eye that will cause her to desire the best as well.
Keep us informed and God Bless.
excuse you?
There's no excuse for me. I am simply a rude slob, plain and simple.
However not all things are as simple as telling someone to "just go" and not think.
I do not 'just go' to church on Sunday. There is Saturday Night Vespers, Confession, Pre-Communion Prayers, etc. IOW, telling one to 'just go' without knowing all the elements causes this person to think that those that say 'just go' are young whipper-snappers. If you are not one, you may have those types of impulses. It's like a young man telling me that age is simply 'a state of mind'! Now how does he know?
Told you I was rude, now you've proof.

 64 
 on: Today at 07:04:41 PM 
Started by Volnutt - Last post by minasoliman
As hard as it may sound, another answer I could think of is take these condemnations with their good intentions.  If it comes up later that these condemnations do not truly represent them, then by all means, pray for them and for the Church.  If it does in fact truly represent them, pray for them and for the Church to be kept away from such heresies.  We always need to remember that history does not always equate with dogma.

 65 
 on: Today at 07:04:37 PM 
Started by Keble - Last post by Volnutt
I'm not going anywhere near "virginity remained inviolate" if you intend that in some sort of miraculous sense. There's nothing about the word "virginity" that makes talking about "remained virgin during" a coherent statement. If you want to say she never ever knew Joseph or anyone else, well, OK, there's nothing miraculous about that, but I reserve judgement.

"Remained virgin during" may not be coherent to us because we have largely moved away from a model of "virginity" that emphasises the physical "seal", but that is what is being spoken about in the patristic teachings, hymned in the parallels between the virginal womb and the empty tomb from which Christ emerged without breaking the seals, etc.  Such teachings are at least as much the common heritage of Anglicanism as the Chrysostom Liturgy.   
The reason we've moved away from it is because it's a fallacy. Not all women's hymens are broken during sex.

OK, but is it a fallacy people back then would've known for sure was a fallacy?  There are places in the world today--even in the US--where people do not know this and live and act accordingly, so I wouldn't be shocked if people were like that two thousand years ago.  So what's a God to do?

Not enshrine fallacious thinking in doctrinal form?

 66 
 on: Today at 07:03:05 PM 
Started by Keble - Last post by Mor Ephrem
I'm not going anywhere near "virginity remained inviolate" if you intend that in some sort of miraculous sense. There's nothing about the word "virginity" that makes talking about "remained virgin during" a coherent statement. If you want to say she never ever knew Joseph or anyone else, well, OK, there's nothing miraculous about that, but I reserve judgement.

"Remained virgin during" may not be coherent to us because we have largely moved away from a model of "virginity" that emphasises the physical "seal", but that is what is being spoken about in the patristic teachings, hymned in the parallels between the virginal womb and the empty tomb from which Christ emerged without breaking the seals, etc.  Such teachings are at least as much the common heritage of Anglicanism as the Chrysostom Liturgy.   
The reason we've moved away from it is because it's a fallacy. Not all women's hymens are broken during sex.

OK, but is it a fallacy people back then would've known for sure was a fallacy?  There are places in the world today--even in the US--where people do not know this and live and act accordingly, so I wouldn't be shocked if people were like that two thousand years ago.  So what's a God to do?

 67 
 on: Today at 07:00:49 PM 
Started by mike - Last post by Tommelomsky
Welcome. Smiley

 68 
 on: Today at 07:00:33 PM 
Started by Volnutt - Last post by Volnutt
That being said, there's no reason why a future council couldn't overturn these condemnations of persons (while keeping the condemnations of heretical views intact). Perhaps if there was some miracle that occurred, such as an apparition of another saint who said "X isn't a heretic anymore, he's in heaven now, I've talked to him, he repented for teaching Y after he died and now he's orthodox, so stop condemning him" or "X was never really a heretic, he was misunderstood and never really taught Y, and St. Z has apologized for bearing false witness against him, so stop condemning him".

If such a miracle were subsequently accepted by the church it could result in X going from being considered a heretic to being a saint almost instantly. I sometimes think it'll probably take a literal miracle like that to bring the EO and OO back together. Purely human attempts at reunion are likely doomed to fail.

Don't give anyone crazy ideas, you never know when someone will fabricate such a vision.  I suspect some of these phenomena which we already have in our history are fabrications designed to reinforce existing divisions or provide justifications for them. 
You're just mad because St. Euphemia doesn't like you Tongue

I suspect she laughs in between the tears. 
So do I.

 69 
 on: Today at 07:00:18 PM 
Started by wgw - Last post by LBK
Quote
This sounds more like an ex post facto justification than an actual reason.  The OT is not read at the Liturgy in the Byzantine tradition, but that has nothing to do with difficulties in interpretation.  The book is named "Revelation", not "Veiled Obscurities"...there has to have been some sort of interpretive tradition in the Church regarding this book for it to have been understood and not simply gawked at when it was first written and read.
   

The hieromonk I quoted earlier spoke of the Tolkovanie for liturgical readings, and the absence of one for Revelation. There are also patristic commentaries on Revelation, so there is indeed an interpretive tradition. It just doesn't find its way into the liturgical life of the Church.

At any rate, if the OP is so fascinated by Revelation, ISTM a far better spiritual exercise would be to read and reflect on one of the existing patristic commentaries on this book, and drop his attempts at liturgical restorationism. If he does have a talent for poetry and wants to develop it, a more useful exercise would be to select a saint, study what Church tradition says about him or her, and then write a canon or akathist for that saint.


 70 
 on: Today at 06:59:13 PM 
Started by Father Peter - Last post by minasoliman
Not to derail the conversation, but is there any explanation given as to why Islam forbids adoption? What's their justification?

I have heard it said, they're afraid that a brother and sister who were separated early on, would meet later,
not knowing any better, and get married, and then you have incest.

 Angry

That may be a later justification, I'm not certain.

AFAIK its because their prophet wanted to marry his adopted son's wife, Zainab. His son, Zaid, divorced her so they could marry. This caused a scandal among his followers, but he then received a "message" that adoptions are forbidden. And since Zaid was not really his son by blood, the marriage to Zainab was acceptable in their faith.




One of my favorite stories in the Quran  Tongue

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.06 seconds with 17 queries.