OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 22, 2014, 10:45:07 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 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Raising Children in a Mixed Marriage  (Read 8325 times) Average Rating: 5
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« on: August 17, 2010, 01:03:19 PM »

I only wonder, though it's none of my business, what will happen when children are on the way. I've probably talked about it, but usually whatever compromise goes out the window once it becomes a reality.

I guess it must depend on how much congruity there is. I can't imagine being married to a Hindu (as mentioned above), because that is such a different belief system, I could not in good conscience support it. But if you think about the way we talk to little children, it is all quite simple within Christianity. You start by taking a child to hear a service, perhaps not even the whole service, and they learn some simple prayers, then they ask questions like 'did God have a wife' or 'did Noah use his boat after the flood' - none of this will present problems! I reckon it is only when a child is old enough to think for him or herself that you get into more complicated questions, and by that time, it's reasonable enough to explain that not everyone agrees on the answers.

I think you have over-simplified this. To even begin with, there is the very question of what service the children will be going to and to what extent they will be allowed to participate.

This is such an interesting discussion ...

I suppose you may be right, but of course, it need not be a question as to which service children attend. There's no reason why they should not attend both, and I don't believe there's any reason they couldn't participate just as much as their peer-group in both services. The real issue comes after childhood, when the individual must make a decision - but then, you'd hope anyone making adult decisions about faith would do so carefully. With my partner and me, there is nothing whatsoever that would prevent a child from participating in both Orthodox and Anglican services just as fully as anyone else.

This is why I feel that, although I'd struggle to date, say, a Hindu - there's a different level of incompatibility there.
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,300



« Reply #1 on: August 17, 2010, 01:25:32 PM »

I only wonder, though it's none of my business, what will happen when children are on the way. I've probably talked about it, but usually whatever compromise goes out the window once it becomes a reality.

I guess it must depend on how much congruity there is. I can't imagine being married to a Hindu (as mentioned above), because that is such a different belief system, I could not in good conscience support it. But if you think about the way we talk to little children, it is all quite simple within Christianity. You start by taking a child to hear a service, perhaps not even the whole service, and they learn some simple prayers, then they ask questions like 'did God have a wife' or 'did Noah use his boat after the flood' - none of this will present problems! I reckon it is only when a child is old enough to think for him or herself that you get into more complicated questions, and by that time, it's reasonable enough to explain that not everyone agrees on the answers.

I think you have over-simplified this. To even begin with, there is the very question of what service the children will be going to and to what extent they will be allowed to participate.

This is such an interesting discussion ...

I suppose you may be right, but of course, it need not be a question as to which service children attend. There's no reason why they should not attend both, and I don't believe there's any reason they couldn't participate just as much as their peer-group in both services. The real issue comes after childhood, when the individual must make a decision - but then, you'd hope anyone making adult decisions about faith would do so carefully. With my partner and me, there is nothing whatsoever that would prevent a child from participating in both Orthodox and Anglican services just as fully as anyone else.

This is why I feel that, although I'd struggle to date, say, a Hindu - there's a different level of incompatibility there.
Just on a scheduling level, most of the time, services and Sunday School or other activities will be mutually exclusive. It's all parents can do to get their children to one service or one youth group activity, for example, considering the reality of our busy modern lives.

One of the modern challenges of teaching Sunday School is trying to teach children where both parents are not Orthodox, or are divorced. This means that the child does not always attend regularly, and if they do, they have very little foundation or frame of reference for Orthodoxy. (I'm sure the same holds true for other churches as well.) So that it is difficult, in a limited amount of time, to provide any meaningful catechesis.

As well, Orthodoxy often says and teaches and believes different (sometimes radically different) things from even other Christian groups or faith communities. So even though Mommy and Daddy say they respect each other's beliefs, Mommy is saying one thing and Daddy is saying another. Or (what's worse, to my way of thinking) they end up saying all ways are equally the same, and it doesn't really matter what you believe.

And although we know that there are lies, d**n lies and statistics, there are studies that indicate children of interfaith marriages tend to have weak, if any, attachment to religion.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 13,021



WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 17, 2010, 01:47:04 PM »


I'm sorry....am I missing something here?

Are you seriously encouraging children to split their time equally between faiths...and saying this is a "good" thing?

This always upsets me.

In my Orthodox parish...I have those families who have married outside the Church - to other Christian denominations.  They freely take there kids here and there...and their comments are the same..."it doesn't matter, Catholic and Orthodox is basically the same."

Huh?

Why did you bother to have your children baptized in the Orthodox Church only to take them regularly to R. Catholic or Byz Catholic parishes, where the kids actually partake of Communion...then on special holidays drag them back to the Orthodox Church.

What gives?

Pick one and stick to it.

Because if you truly think that it's okay to go from one to the other...than you really are neither....or you simply do not understand the Faith you propose to be.

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #3 on: August 17, 2010, 01:59:23 PM »


Just on a scheduling level, most of the time, services and Sunday School or other activities will be mutually exclusive. It's all parents can do to get their children to one service or one youth group activity, for example, considering the reality of our busy modern lives.

One of the modern challenges of teaching Sunday School is trying to teach children where both parents are not Orthodox, or are divorced. This means that the child does not always attend regularly, and if they do, they have very little foundation or frame of reference for Orthodoxy. (I'm sure the same holds true for other churches as well.) So that it is difficult, in a limited amount of time, to provide any meaningful catechesis.

As well, Orthodoxy often says and teaches and believes different (sometimes radically different) things from even other Christian groups or faith communities. So even though Mommy and Daddy say they respect each other's beliefs, Mommy is saying one thing and Daddy is saying another. Or (what's worse, to my way of thinking) they end up saying all ways are equally the same, and it doesn't really matter what you believe.

And although we know that there are lies, d**n lies and statistics, there are studies that indicate children of interfaith marriages tend to have weak, if any, attachment to religion.

I guess we're lucky here; there isn't too much cross-timetabling.
I have to say, I suspect what is damaging in some interfaith relationships is not so much that the parents have different faiths, but that one or both hasn't got very strong faith. If you have strong faith, you would bring up your children by telling them you are sure of what is right; it shouldn't matter that someone else disagrees. On the other hand, if your faith is actually not very strong, or if your attachment to it is more cultural than religious (very common, that), then you're more likely to fail to give satisfying explanations.

I've heard people whose faith is weak trying to justify their church-going: it is one of the most off-putting things you can imagine!
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,300



« Reply #4 on: August 17, 2010, 02:10:06 PM »

If you have strong faith, you would bring up your children by telling them you are sure of what is right; it shouldn't matter that someone else disagrees.
So you're saying that if you believe, for example, that premarital sex for your teenager is wrong, but your husband believes it's ok, and you both strongly adhere to your beliefs, that telling your teenager that Mommy says it's wrong but Daddy says it's ok, is not confusing?
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #5 on: August 17, 2010, 02:20:37 PM »

If you have strong faith, you would bring up your children by telling them you are sure of what is right; it shouldn't matter that someone else disagrees.
So you're saying that if you believe, for example, that premarital sex for your teenager is wrong, but your husband believes it's ok, and you both strongly adhere to your beliefs, that telling your teenager that Mommy says it's wrong but Daddy says it's ok, is not confusing?

I can't imagine a caring parent approaching the issue like that - surely no one with any moral convictions says to their teenager, 'ok, sex is fine, but Mummy thinks it's wrong'?! Does any rational person really have beliefs that are so black-and-white?

Personally, I don't understand the idea of believing something is wrong for someone else. You might be very sad and shocked if your teenager decided to have sex, but ultimately, short of chaining them to the house until they're 21, your beliefs can only be a guide, so you'd want to talk carefully about why you believe, rather than state 'I believe this'/ 'I don't believe that', wouldn't you?

I'm just trying to understand as we don't have children yet.
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,300



« Reply #6 on: August 17, 2010, 03:16:24 PM »

so you'd want to talk carefully about why you believe, rather than state 'I believe this'/ 'I don't believe that', wouldn't you?


Of course, but if you don't believe the same things, your conversation would have to be "I believe this because.... but of course, Daddy doesn't agree, and believes this because...." And presumably your values would have been communicated earlier, when the child was younger and not able to understand or grasp concepts like that. That is where the black and white comes in.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #7 on: August 17, 2010, 03:25:26 PM »

so you'd want to talk carefully about why you believe, rather than state 'I believe this'/ 'I don't believe that', wouldn't you?


Of course, but if you don't believe the same things, your conversation would have to be "I believe this because.... but of course, Daddy doesn't agree, and believes this because...." And presumably your values would have been communicated earlier, when the child was younger and not able to understand or grasp concepts like that. That is where the black and white comes in.

I don't think that is right. How could a child be old enough to understand and discuss sexual morality, but not old enough to discuss the theology behind it?

I would have thought that, when a child is young, you talk about love, and the love of families, and almost certainly your children will go through a stage of 'playing mummy and daddy'. Now, surely, you don't interrupt that with an incomprehensible lecture on pre-marital sex? In the same way, a child who's old enough to be talked to a little about sex, is surely too old to be fobbed off with black-and-white statements, and will want and need discussion. If you refuse to discuss the fact that some people believe teenage sex is absolutely fine, you can be sure your child will have that discussion with someone else, who's perhaps a lot less concerned for his or her welfare.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 17, 2010, 08:16:21 PM »

and I don't believe there's any reason they couldn't participate just as much as their peer-group in both services. The real issue comes after childhood, when the individual must make a decision - but then, you'd hope anyone making adult decisions about faith would do so carefully. With my partner and me, there is nothing whatsoever that would prevent a child from participating in both Orthodox and Anglican services just as fully as anyone else.

As far as I know, your partner/husband (sorry, I don't remember exactly what stage you are at in this) is essentially required by his church to forbid his children form partaking of the "Sacraments" in your own.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #9 on: August 18, 2010, 05:26:32 AM »

and I don't believe there's any reason they couldn't participate just as much as their peer-group in both services. The real issue comes after childhood, when the individual must make a decision - but then, you'd hope anyone making adult decisions about faith would do so carefully. With my partner and me, there is nothing whatsoever that would prevent a child from participating in both Orthodox and Anglican services just as fully as anyone else.

As far as I know, your partner/husband (sorry, I don't remember exactly what stage you are at in this) is essentially required by his church to forbid his children form partaking of the "Sacraments" in your own.

Children do not partake of the Sacraments in the Anglican Church; that's the point. The only one would be the christening, and an Orthodox ceremony would be as valid as an Anglican one.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2010, 05:27:46 AM by Liz » Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,300



« Reply #10 on: August 18, 2010, 09:33:31 AM »

I don't think that is right. How could a child be old enough to understand and discuss sexual morality, but not old enough to discuss the theology behind it?
You are misunderstanding me, and I'm sorry I was not more clear. Would you agree that waiting until a child is a teenager to communicate values and morals about anything, including sexual morality, lying, cheating, stealing, being mean or unkind, is too late?
When children are young, you communicate values and morals, of necessity since their understanding and vocabulary is limited. "Darling, no, it's wrong/bad to take Sissy's doll away from her." When the child is a bit older, you can expand it to "How would you feel if she took your truck?" When the child is older, you can employ more detailed and philosophical reasons why one should not appropriate someone else's belongings.
The point is, that you wouldn't wait to communicated your values and morality and beliefs until they were able to have an adult philosophical discussion about them.


Quote
I would have thought that, when a child is young, you talk about love, and the love of families, and almost certainly your children will go through a stage of 'playing mummy and daddy'. Now, surely, you don't interrupt that with an incomprehensible lecture on pre-marital sex? In the same way, a child who's old enough to be talked to a little about sex, is surely too old to be fobbed off with black-and-white statements, and will want and need discussion.
But if premarital sex is against your personal, religious and moral beliefs, then you would presumably incorporate "Mommy and Daddy loved each other and wanted to have a family and so they got married."

Quote
If you refuse to discuss the fact that some people believe teenage sex is absolutely fine, you can be sure your child will have that discussion with someone else, who's perhaps a lot less concerned for his or her welfare.
You have just proved my point. What if the person who believes that it is wrong, for all sorts of reasons, including religious, is one spouse and the person who believes that it's absolutely fine is the other.
What message are you giving your child? "Do what you want - no matter how young you are and how destructive it will be?"
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #11 on: August 18, 2010, 09:52:25 AM »

I don't think that is right. How could a child be old enough to understand and discuss sexual morality, but not old enough to discuss the theology behind it?
You are misunderstanding me, and I'm sorry I was not more clear. Would you agree that waiting until a child is a teenager to communicate values and morals about anything, including sexual morality, lying, cheating, stealing, being mean or unkind, is too late?
When children are young, you communicate values and morals, of necessity since their understanding and vocabulary is limited. "Darling, no, it's wrong/bad to take Sissy's doll away from her." When the child is a bit older, you can expand it to "How would you feel if she took your truck?" When the child is older, you can employ more detailed and philosophical reasons why one should not appropriate someone else's belongings.
The point is, that you wouldn't wait to communicated your values and morality and beliefs until they were able to have an adult philosophical discussion about them.

But Katherine, none of that would be affected by the parents' different faiths if both were Christian, would it?



Quote
I would have thought that, when a child is young, you talk about love, and the love of families, and almost certainly your children will go through a stage of 'playing mummy and daddy'. Now, surely, you don't interrupt that with an incomprehensible lecture on pre-marital sex? In the same way, a child who's old enough to be talked to a little about sex, is surely too old to be fobbed off with black-and-white statements, and will want and need discussion.
But if premarital sex is against your personal, religious and moral beliefs, then you would presumably incorporate "Mommy and Daddy loved each other and wanted to have a family and so they got married."
[/quote]

That is pretty much what all married couples say to their children, isn't it? If you've already decided to marry and have children, why would you say something different?


Quote
If you refuse to discuss the fact that some people believe teenage sex is absolutely fine, you can be sure your child will have that discussion with someone else, who's perhaps a lot less concerned for his or her welfare.
You have just proved my point. What if the person who believes that it is wrong, for all sorts of reasons, including religious, is one spouse and the person who believes that it's absolutely fine is the other.
What message are you giving your child? "Do what you want - no matter how young you are and how destructive it will be?"
[/quote]

I really don't think I have proved your point! You can't wrap a child in cotton wool, and you can't deny that some people in the world believe and do things that others consider very wrong. You teach your child what you believe to be right, and at the same time you teach them to make judgments for themselves. Part of that must be about acknowledging that people have different beliefs.

I don't understand how you read what I wrote, and came to the conclusion that the message I would give was, 'do what you want'. It's not. But it is naive to assume that, if you tell a child 'This is Right, do only this', that child will never listen to other people saying, 'No, your parents are wrong, do it anyway'. It's much better to teach the child that some people hold different views from others, and that they don't have to take *anyone's* view at face value.

I think this is really important with things concerning sex. I know a girl who met her 'boyfriend' at 15 (he was 22), and started a physical relationship with him. She is still, several years on, a very damaged person. Like most of us, she'd been told by her parents that some people were not nice and she should be wary of strangers, and she'd been brought up to believe sex was for marriage. This guy simply had to come along and tell her that he cared about her and loved her, and that actually, sex with him would be just fine.

I would much rather that I or my husband were able to tell our children that some people will tell that that sex before marriage is good, rather than have them hear it from some persuasive and unpleasant person, who preys on young people who've been brought up naive.
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,300



« Reply #12 on: August 18, 2010, 10:17:36 AM »


But Katherine, none of that would be affected by the parents' different faiths if both were Christian, would it?
Do you really think so? Have you heard some of the things that self-identified Christians are saying?
I think that you have been on these boards long enough to realized that Orthodoxy, in particular, teaches and believes things that are very different from other faith communities.

Quote
I really don't think I have proved your point! You can't wrap a child in cotton wool, and you can't deny that some people in the world believe and do things that others consider very wrong. You teach your child what you believe to be right, and at the same time you teach them to make judgments for themselves.
You are still misunderstanding, and you actually have proved my point. What if the two people who are most responsible for teaching the child are teaching two entirely different things? What message are you giving the child?

Quote
I don't understand how you read what I wrote, and came to the conclusion that the message I would give was, 'do what you want'.
Of course it is. If you teach the child that there are different ways to behave and all are morally neutral, since you and your spouse do not agree on what's right or acceptable, then whatever the child decides to do is ok.

Quote
But it is naive to assume that, if you tell a child 'This is Right, do only this', that child will never listen to other people saying, 'No, your parents are wrong, do it anyway'.
Of course not, and I don't believe I said that. But in this case, it would be the mother who is saying "Your father is wrong. Do it anyway." Or vice versa. It's very different.

Quote
It's much better to teach the child that some people hold different views from others, and that they don't have to take *anyone's* view at face value.
And their parents' views are no better than anyone else's?

Quote
I would much rather that I or my husband were able to tell our children that some people will tell that that sex before marriage is good, rather than have them hear it from some persuasive and unpleasant person, who preys on young people who've been brought up naive.
Again, you are misunderstanding me. I am saying that what happens if you tell your children that, and your husband tells them it's ok.
I'm really rather surprised that you can't see the difference.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #13 on: August 18, 2010, 11:58:48 AM »


But Katherine, none of that would be affected by the parents' different faiths if both were Christian, would it?
Do you really think so? Have you heard some of the things that self-identified Christians are saying?
I think that you have been on these boards long enough to realized that Orthodoxy, in particular, teaches and believes things that are very different from other faith communities.

Quote
I really don't think I have proved your point! You can't wrap a child in cotton wool, and you can't deny that some people in the world believe and do things that others consider very wrong. You teach your child what you believe to be right, and at the same time you teach them to make judgments for themselves.
You are still misunderstanding, and you actually have proved my point. What if the two people who are most responsible for teaching the child are teaching two entirely different things? What message are you giving the child?

Katherine, these two posts show what the problem is. You think there are insurmountable differences between Orthodoxy and any other expression of Christian faith, so you go making them up and attributing them to others. What 'two entirely different things' do you mean? I have shown you that there wouldn't be differences already!


Quote
Quote
I don't understand how you read what I wrote, and came to the conclusion that the message I would give was, 'do what you want'.
Of course it is. If you teach the child that there are different ways to behave and all are morally neutral, since you and your spouse do not agree on what's right or acceptable, then whatever the child decides to do is ok.

Who said we would be morally neutral?

Quote
Quote
But it is naive to assume that, if you tell a child 'This is Right, do only this', that child will never listen to other people saying, 'No, your parents are wrong, do it anyway'.
Of course not, and I don't believe I said that. But in this case, it would be the mother who is saying "Your father is wrong. Do it anyway." Or vice versa. It's very different.

In what situation would the mother be saying the father is wrong, and telling the child to do something? Are we still talking about teenage sex - and if so, can you honestly imagine any Christian parent merrily telling their child to go off and have sex?! I don't think so.

Quote
Quote
It's much better to teach the child that some people hold different views from others, and that they don't have to take *anyone's* view at face value.
And their parents' views are no better than anyone else's?
Quote

Their parents' views must be respected, because children should respect their parents. However, merely giving birth does not suddenly endow people with perfect understanding - why would it?

Quote
Quote
I would much rather that I or my husband were able to tell our children that some people will tell that that sex before marriage is good, rather than have them hear it from some persuasive and unpleasant person, who preys on young people who've been brought up naive.
Again, you are misunderstanding me. I am saying that what happens if you tell your children that, and your husband tells them it's ok.
I'm really rather surprised that you can't see the difference.

Katherine, I don't think you are talking about religious faith any more, but rather, about how you would parent, aren't you?
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,300



« Reply #14 on: August 18, 2010, 01:44:37 PM »

Katherine, these two posts show what the problem is. You think there are insurmountable differences between Orthodoxy and any other expression of Christian faith
Just because you have convinced yourself otherwise does not mean that, for example, the Anglican Church teaches and preaches many different things from Orthodoxy.

Quote
so you go making them up and attributing them to others. What 'two entirely different things' do you mean? I have shown you that there wouldn't be differences already!
There are very real differences. Pretending that we all believe the same thing and everything's hunky-dory is not only false, but wrong. You have seen those differences on this very board. For example, the Anglican Church, or at least part of it, sometimes it's difficult for an outsider to keep up, believes, teaches and practices ordination of women and enthrones women bishops. Moving to other Protestant churches, there are differences in beliefs about the Eucharist, and what constitutes living a Christian life.

If one spouse believes that a kind of behavior or a belief is wrong and the other believes that it is acceptable, then you are presenting the concept that all beliefs and behavior are equivalent or morally neutral.

Quote
In what situation would the mother be saying the father is wrong, and telling the child to do something?
In situations where the mother and father hold different beliefs.

Quote
Katherine, I don't think you are talking about religious faith any more, but rather, about how you would parent, aren't you?
No. I am talking about religious beliefs and teachings, using an admittedly farfetched example. It is important, and most of the research says the same, that parents present a consistent worldview, system of morality and values, or whatever you wish to call it, to children. Children of interfaith marriages, for whatever reason, tend to have a weak attachment to either or any faith.
When parents have different beliefs, they are essentially saying to children that Mommy says one thing is right while Daddy says another. If we're talking about rutabaga casserole, that's one thing. If we're talking about faith, morality, values, ethics, then that is quite another.

« Last Edit: August 18, 2010, 01:46:49 PM by katherineofdixie » Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #15 on: August 18, 2010, 02:06:32 PM »

Katherine, with respect, I think the amount of going-in-circles you're doing here suggests you know your own weaknesses.

This thread started out by asking why an Orthodox person would date a non-Orthodox. The question of children has been brought up. Now, we've established (and your own posts show this) that one does not initiate detailed theological, or sex-related, discussion with a small child. Now you're harping on about these precise differences - why?

A child who is old enough to discuss issues of faith, is old enough to be taught that different people believe different things, and that faith must be felt and experienced, not simply imposed top-down. A child who isn't old enough for that discussion, is unlikely to notice any of the subtle points we adults care so much about.

Quote
Katherine, these two posts show what the problem is. You think there are insurmountable differences between Orthodoxy and any other expression of Christian faith
Just because you have convinced yourself otherwise does not mean that, for example, the Anglican Church teaches and preaches many different things from Orthodoxy.

Quote
so you go making them up and attributing them to others. What 'two entirely different things' do you mean? I have shown you that there wouldn't be differences already!
There are very real differences. Pretending that we all believe the same thing and everything's hunky-dory is not only false, but wrong. You have seen those differences on this very board. For example, the Anglican Church, or at least part of it, sometimes it's difficult for an outsider to keep up, believes, teaches and practices ordination of women and enthrones women bishops. Moving to other Protestant churches, there are differences in beliefs about the Eucharist, and what constitutes living a Christian life.

But how does this relate to the central question of the thread? I think you're simply opening up the old question of whether Orthodoxy, or non-Orthodoxy is true Christianity.

Quote
If one spouse believes that a kind of behavior or a belief is wrong and the other believes that it is acceptable, then you are presenting the concept that all beliefs and behavior are equivalent or morally neutral.

No, that is simply not true. How could it be? The two things aren't related.

Quote
Quote
In what situation would the mother be saying the father is wrong, and telling the child to do something?
In situations where the mother and father hold different beliefs.

Well, Katherine, give me an example within a Christian family.

Quote
Quote
Katherine, I don't think you are talking about religious faith any more, but rather, about how you would parent, aren't you?
No. I am talking about religious beliefs and teachings, using an admittedly farfetched example. It is important, and most of the research says the same, that parents present a consistent worldview, system of morality and values, or whatever you wish to call it, to children. Children of interfaith marriages, for whatever reason, tend to have a weak attachment to either or any faith.

And this research is where ...? I have heard the opposite, and have to say that in my experience, the reverse is true. Parents who insist upon brainwashing their children with their beliefs, very often find that the children rebel once they realize that, in the world outside their own home, different people do have different beliefs, and yet are not 'evil' or 'bad' people.

Quote
When parents have different beliefs, they are essentially saying to children that Mommy says one thing is right while Daddy says another.

No, they're not. Surely it's a fundamental Christian belief that it's not Mum or Dad who makes up what's right or wrong, it's God. It may be that Mum and Dad understand this differently, but it is also axiomatic of Christianity that we are all imperfect. I don't really see the issue here.
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,300



« Reply #16 on: August 18, 2010, 02:28:29 PM »

Katherine, with respect, I think the amount of going-in-circles you're doing here suggests you know your own weaknesses.
Then you credit me with more self-awareness or intelligence than I apparently have, since I am still firmly convinced that I am making a valid and important point. With respect, I believe you are refusing to actually consider what I am saying, or else I am making such a hash of it that a reasonably intelligent person is unable to grasp my point.

Quote
This thread started out by asking why an Orthodox person would date a non-Orthodox. The question of children has been brought up. Now, we've established (and your own posts show this) that one does not initiate detailed theological, or sex-related, discussion with a small child.
I was using that as an admittedly poor example of differing beliefs.

Quote
Now you're harping on about these precise differences - why?
Because you asked, and because they are important.

Quote
A child who is old enough to discuss issues of faith, is old enough to be taught that different people believe different things, and that faith must be felt and experienced, not simply imposed top-down.
And will also notice that Mommy and Daddy don't believe the same things either. Does that mean that all beliefs are equally true? Or equally false?

Quote
A child who isn't old enough for that discussion, is unlikely to notice any of the subtle points we adults care so much about.
They are not subtle - they are profound differences.
But your characterization of the differences as subtle and my insistence that there are meaningful differences as "harping" actually tells me quite a bit.
Think about it. You and I self-identify as Christians. Yet we disagree fundamentally on what that means and how that "operates" in the world and in our lives. You believe that I am wrong and I believe that you are wrong.
Imagine if we were married and raising a family.

Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #17 on: August 18, 2010, 03:28:54 PM »

Katherine, with respect, I think the amount of going-in-circles you're doing here suggests you know your own weaknesses.
Then you credit me with more self-awareness or intelligence than I apparently have, since I am still firmly convinced that I am making a valid and important point. With respect, I believe you are refusing to actually consider what I am saying, or else I am making such a hash of it that a reasonably intelligent person is unable to grasp my point.

I don't think it's that - and please don't feel that. I think that, because so often we talk about very important aspects of faith on this forum, it's easy to forget that subtle theological arguments aren't that important to a small child.

Quote
Quote
This thread started out by asking why an Orthodox person would date a non-Orthodox. The question of children has been brought up. Now, we've established (and your own posts show this) that one does not initiate detailed theological, or sex-related, discussion with a small child.
I was using that as an admittedly poor example of differing beliefs.

Quote
Now you're harping on about these precise differences - why?
Because you asked, and because they are important.

No, what I was asking about was differences *in the way you would talk to a child*. My point is that, most of these differences wouldn't affect a child.

Quote
Quote
A child who is old enough to discuss issues of faith, is old enough to be taught that different people believe different things, and that faith must be felt and experienced, not simply imposed top-down.
And will also notice that Mommy and Daddy don't believe the same things either. Does that mean that all beliefs are equally true? Or equally false?

Why should it mean either? Mummy and Daddy probably don't both enjoy all the same books: does that mean there is no such thing as a good book?

Quote
Quote
A child who isn't old enough for that discussion, is unlikely to notice any of the subtle points we adults care so much about.
They are not subtle - they are profound differences.
But your characterization of the differences as subtle and my insistence that there are meaningful differences as "harping" actually tells me quite a bit.
Think about it. You and I self-identify as Christians. Yet we disagree fundamentally on what that means and how that "operates" in the world and in our lives. You believe that I am wrong and I believe that you are wrong.
Imagine if we were married and raising a family.



A thing can be both subtle, and profound. These differences are profound, and meaningful: that is true. But, I think they are also too subtle for a child to grasp, if that child is also unable to appreciate proper adult discussion.

I see what you mean about what it would be like if two such different Christian people as us were to raise a family - but I would say that the primary point is that we are such different people, rather than that we belong to different Christian faiths. We'd probably argue as much about the flavours of ice-cream as about church attendance - to choose a flippant example.

Mind you: if you are willing to consider the idea of raising a family with another woman, then evidently  there is more hope for Orthodox-Anglican common agreement than I thought!  Wink Cheesy
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,232


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #18 on: August 18, 2010, 03:34:04 PM »

Mind you: if you are willing to consider the idea of raising a family with another woman, then evidently  there is more hope for Orthodox-Anglican common agreement than I thought!  Wink Cheesy
Somehow I don't think that last statement came out expressing quite the sentiment I think you intended it to communicate. Undecided  Might you be thinking instead of sharing with another woman your ideas of how to raise a family?
« Last Edit: August 18, 2010, 03:35:54 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #19 on: August 18, 2010, 03:37:49 PM »

Mind you: if you are willing to consider the idea of raising a family with another woman, then evidently  there is more hope for Orthodox-Anglican common agreement than I thought!  Wink Cheesy
Somehow I don't think that last statement came out expressing quite the sentiment I think you intended it to communicate. Undecided  Might you be thinking instead of sharing with another woman your ideas of how to raise a family?

I'm sorry, it was only intended as a joke.
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,300



« Reply #20 on: August 18, 2010, 04:03:31 PM »

Why should it mean either? Mummy and Daddy probably don't both enjoy all the same books: does that mean there is no such thing as a good book?
And religious/moral/ethical values and beliefs are on the same level of importance as taste in literature? I'm sure you didn't mean to say that?


Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #21 on: August 18, 2010, 04:32:43 PM »

Why should it mean either? Mummy and Daddy probably don't both enjoy all the same books: does that mean there is no such thing as a good book?
And religious/moral/ethical values and beliefs are on the same level of importance as taste in literature? I'm sure you didn't mean to say that?




Think about it this way: God exists whether we know about Him or not, whether we understand Him or not, whether we agree on Who He is and how we should worship Him. In the same way, my partner and I may have read different books, have different ideas about how to understand them, have different criteria on which to prefer books ... but that doesn't mean we can't accept some idea of 'Literature'. Morality, likewise, is something that we all know must exist (like God), however differently we may understand or judge it. And, like Literature, we may all have different ideas and preconceptions, but ultimately, we do recongize that we're aiming at the same thing: a standard of honourable behaviour that is Right.
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,300



« Reply #22 on: August 18, 2010, 04:51:11 PM »

Morality, likewise, is something that we all know must exist (like God), however differently we may understand or judge it. And, like Literature, we may all have different ideas and preconceptions, but ultimately, we do recongize that we're aiming at the same thing: a standard of honourable behaviour that is Right.


Not necessarily. People, even self-identified Christians, have totally divergent ideas of God, His existance, morality, and a standard of honorable behavior that is Right.

What I am doing is questioning your underlying assumptions: that all beliefs are equal, and equally ok, so it doesn't really matter what the details of our beliefts are, since we all are aiming a standard of honorable behavior that is Right.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #23 on: August 18, 2010, 05:00:47 PM »

Morality, likewise, is something that we all know must exist (like God), however differently we may understand or judge it. And, like Literature, we may all have different ideas and preconceptions, but ultimately, we do recongize that we're aiming at the same thing: a standard of honourable behaviour that is Right.


Not necessarily. People, even self-identified Christians, have totally divergent ideas of God, His existance, morality, and a standard of honorable behavior that is Right.


Of course - I didn't say they didn't. But how could you not agree that, whatever we think of God, He exists? Our belief has no bearing on His existence, any more than it does on the existence of morality.

Quote
What I am doing is questioning your underlying assumptions: that all beliefs are equal, and equally ok, so it doesn't really matter what the details of our beliefts are, since we all are aiming a standard of honorable behavior that is Right.

I didn't say any of those things - I think I'm not getting my point across. There is a difference between acknowledging that others have different beliefs, and condoning those beliefs. As a corollary, we can recongize when others are sincere in their attempts to live a moral life, and when they are not. We should respect the sincerity, even while we have serious doubts about the conclusion.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,666



« Reply #24 on: August 18, 2010, 05:05:14 PM »

Morality, likewise, is something that we all know must exist (like God), however differently we may understand or judge it. And, like Literature, we may all have different ideas and preconceptions, but ultimately, we do recongize that we're aiming at the same thing: a standard of honourable behaviour that is Right.


Not necessarily. People, even self-identified Christians, have totally divergent ideas of God, His existance, morality, and a standard of honorable behavior that is Right.

What I am doing is questioning your underlying assumptions: that all beliefs are equal, and equally ok, so it doesn't really matter what the details of our beliefts are, since we all are aiming a standard of honorable behavior that is Right.

Well, she is Anglican. Btw, Muslims often make the same arguement.

Christ did not die to make us proper English gentlemen and ladies.

I can't speak for you and your husband (though I have the same reaction over your priest problem), but for centuries now the Anglicans have been telling us that we are branches of the same tree, and we have had to politely demonstrate that no, we are not.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #25 on: August 18, 2010, 05:16:40 PM »

Morality, likewise, is something that we all know must exist (like God), however differently we may understand or judge it. And, like Literature, we may all have different ideas and preconceptions, but ultimately, we do recongize that we're aiming at the same thing: a standard of honourable behaviour that is Right.


Not necessarily. People, even self-identified Christians, have totally divergent ideas of God, His existance, morality, and a standard of honorable behavior that is Right.

What I am doing is questioning your underlying assumptions: that all beliefs are equal, and equally ok, so it doesn't really matter what the details of our beliefts are, since we all are aiming a standard of honorable behavior that is Right.

Well, she is Anglican. Btw, Muslims often make the same arguement.

Christ did not die to make us proper English gentlemen and ladies.

I can't speak for you and your husband (though I have the same reaction over your priest problem), but for centuries now the Anglicans have been telling us that we are branches of the same tree, and we have had to politely demonstrate that no, we are not.

Well, I think the point is that I've never really seen it demonstrated to my satisfaction. To us, you simply appear to be setting wordly concerns before spiritual ones (sorry, but it is true!). I suppose that may be why it's easier for me to champion mixed relationships than an Orthodox person, but I do honestly think that there's also something important in sharing your spiritual life with *someone*, if you're made to be married, rather than wasting it on loneliness. 
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,666



« Reply #26 on: August 18, 2010, 05:19:09 PM »

I only wonder, though it's none of my business, what will happen when children are on the way. I've probably talked about it, but usually whatever compromise goes out the window once it becomes a reality.

I guess it must depend on how much congruity there is. I can't imagine being married to a Hindu (as mentioned above), because that is such a different belief system, I could not in good conscience support it. But if you think about the way we talk to little children, it is all quite simple within Christianity. You start by taking a child to hear a service, perhaps not even the whole service, and they learn some simple prayers, then they ask questions like 'did God have a wife' or 'did Noah use his boat after the flood' - none of this will present problems! I reckon it is only when a child is old enough to think for him or herself that you get into more complicated questions, and by that time, it's reasonable enough to explain that not everyone agrees on the answers.

I think you have over-simplified this. To even begin with, there is the very question of what service the children will be going to and to what extent they will be allowed to participate.

This is such an interesting discussion ...

I suppose you may be right, but of course, it need not be a question as to which service children attend. There's no reason why they should not attend both, and I don't believe there's any reason they couldn't participate just as much as their peer-group in both services. The real issue comes after childhood,

One you go to dad's Church and they venerate icons, and when you go to mom's church and rail against "idols," the issue is going to come up much sooner.  Children are more aware than Calvninists would care to admit.

Quote
when the individual must make a decision - but then, you'd hope anyone making adult decisions about faith would do so carefully. With my partner and me, there is nothing whatsoever that would prevent a child from participating in both Orthodox and Anglican services just as fully as anyone else.
Communion?

Quote
This is why I feel that, although I'd struggle to date, say, a Hindu - there's a different level of incompatibility there.
Yes, but there you admit there is a difference, and hence, will deal with it.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #27 on: August 18, 2010, 05:23:47 PM »

I only wonder, though it's none of my business, what will happen when children are on the way. I've probably talked about it, but usually whatever compromise goes out the window once it becomes a reality.

I guess it must depend on how much congruity there is. I can't imagine being married to a Hindu (as mentioned above), because that is such a different belief system, I could not in good conscience support it. But if you think about the way we talk to little children, it is all quite simple within Christianity. You start by taking a child to hear a service, perhaps not even the whole service, and they learn some simple prayers, then they ask questions like 'did God have a wife' or 'did Noah use his boat after the flood' - none of this will present problems! I reckon it is only when a child is old enough to think for him or herself that you get into more complicated questions, and by that time, it's reasonable enough to explain that not everyone agrees on the answers.

I think you have over-simplified this. To even begin with, there is the very question of what service the children will be going to and to what extent they will be allowed to participate.

This is such an interesting discussion ...

I suppose you may be right, but of course, it need not be a question as to which service children attend. There's no reason why they should not attend both, and I don't believe there's any reason they couldn't participate just as much as their peer-group in both services. The real issue comes after childhood,

One you go to dad's Church and they venerate icons, and when you go to mom's church and rail against "idols," the issue is going to come up much sooner.  Children are more aware than Calvninists would care to admit.

Yes, I guess that would be a problem! But then, do you think two people who attended such *very* different churches would ever get together? I can't see it myself.

Quote
Quote
when the individual must make a decision - but then, you'd hope anyone making adult decisions about faith would do so carefully. With my partner and me, there is nothing whatsoever that would prevent a child from participating in both Orthodox and Anglican services just as fully as anyone else.
Communion?

Quote
This is why I feel that, although I'd struggle to date, say, a Hindu - there's a different level of incompatibility there.
Yes, but there you admit there is a difference, and hence, will deal with it.
Logged
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 966



« Reply #28 on: August 18, 2010, 05:40:41 PM »

I only wonder, though it's none of my business, what will happen when children are on the way. I've probably talked about it, but usually whatever compromise goes out the window once it becomes a reality.

I guess it must depend on how much congruity there is. I can't imagine being married to a Hindu (as mentioned above), because that is such a different belief system, I could not in good conscience support it. But if you think about the way we talk to little children, it is all quite simple within Christianity. You start by taking a child to hear a service, perhaps not even the whole service, and they learn some simple prayers, then they ask questions like 'did God have a wife' or 'did Noah use his boat after the flood' - none of this will present problems! I reckon it is only when a child is old enough to think for him or herself that you get into more complicated questions, and by that time, it's reasonable enough to explain that not everyone agrees on the answers.

I think you have over-simplified this. To even begin with, there is the very question of what service the children will be going to and to what extent they will be allowed to participate.

This is such an interesting discussion ...

I suppose you may be right, but of course, it need not be a question as to which service children attend. There's no reason why they should not attend both, and I don't believe there's any reason they couldn't participate just as much as their peer-group in both services. The real issue comes after childhood,

One you go to dad's Church and they venerate icons, and when you go to mom's church and rail against "idols," the issue is going to come up much sooner.  Children are more aware than Calvninists would care to admit.

Yes, I guess that would be a problem! But then, do you think two people who attended such *very* different churches would ever get together? I can't see it myself.

Forgive me for interrupting a fascinating discussion. 

About this situation that you cannot imagine ever occurring, an iconodule Orthodox and iconoclast Protestant with romantic feelings toward one another and seriously considering marriage?  I am watching that one unfold in real life.

Please, continue.
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #29 on: August 18, 2010, 05:47:14 PM »


Forgive me for interrupting a fascinating discussion. 

About this situation that you cannot imagine ever occurring, an iconodule Orthodox and iconoclast Protestant with romantic feelings toward one another and seriously considering marriage?  I am watching that one unfold in real life.

Please, continue.

Oh, that's lovely! Sadly, I may be the only one here who thinks so - but I wish your friends all the best. If they are serious about one another, they may find this is the first, almost subliminal sign that their beliefs are modifying. I think attraction is often about recongizing in someone else what would make you, yourself, a better person.
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #30 on: August 18, 2010, 07:03:57 PM »

I only wonder, though it's none of my business, what will happen when children are on the way. I've probably talked about it, but usually whatever compromise goes out the window once it becomes a reality.

I guess it must depend on how much congruity there is. I can't imagine being married to a Hindu (as mentioned above), because that is such a different belief system, I could not in good conscience support it. But if you think about the way we talk to little children, it is all quite simple within Christianity. You start by taking a child to hear a service, perhaps not even the whole service, and they learn some simple prayers, then they ask questions like 'did God have a wife' or 'did Noah use his boat after the flood' - none of this will present problems! I reckon it is only when a child is old enough to think for him or herself that you get into more complicated questions, and by that time, it's reasonable enough to explain that not everyone agrees on the answers.

I think you have over-simplified this. To even begin with, there is the very question of what service the children will be going to and to what extent they will be allowed to participate.

This is such an interesting discussion ...

I suppose you may be right, but of course, it need not be a question as to which service children attend. There's no reason why they should not attend both, and I don't believe there's any reason they couldn't participate just as much as their peer-group in both services. The real issue comes after childhood,

One you go to dad's Church and they venerate icons, and when you go to mom's church and rail against "idols," the issue is going to come up much sooner.  Children are more aware than Calvninists would care to admit.

Yes, I guess that would be a problem! But then, do you think two people who attended such *very* different churches would ever get together? I can't see it myself.

Forgive me for interrupting a fascinating discussion. 

About this situation that you cannot imagine ever occurring, an iconodule Orthodox and iconoclast Protestant with romantic feelings toward one another and seriously considering marriage?  I am watching that one unfold in real life.

Please, continue.

Friends of mine from Seattle, he a very faithful Ukrainian Eastern Rite Catholic (definitely Iconodule), and she a very faithful Baptist (definitely an Iconoclast) married approximately 20 years ago and now have three sons, the oldest 17 and the youngest, I believe, 10 or 9. They are a wonderful couple, most devoted to each other, with plenty of romantic feelings. She attends his Divine Liturgies. I don't know whether he attends her services, but I am sure she is happy either way.

People, stop being obsessed with things that are absolutely unimportant. Just sayin'  laugh
Logged

Love never fails.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,666



« Reply #31 on: August 18, 2010, 07:25:21 PM »

I only wonder, though it's none of my business, what will happen when children are on the way. I've probably talked about it, but usually whatever compromise goes out the window once it becomes a reality.

I guess it must depend on how much congruity there is. I can't imagine being married to a Hindu (as mentioned above), because that is such a different belief system, I could not in good conscience support it. But if you think about the way we talk to little children, it is all quite simple within Christianity. You start by taking a child to hear a service, perhaps not even the whole service, and they learn some simple prayers, then they ask questions like 'did God have a wife' or 'did Noah use his boat after the flood' - none of this will present problems! I reckon it is only when a child is old enough to think for him or herself that you get into more complicated questions, and by that time, it's reasonable enough to explain that not everyone agrees on the answers.

I think you have over-simplified this. To even begin with, there is the very question of what service the children will be going to and to what extent they will be allowed to participate.

This is such an interesting discussion ...

I suppose you may be right, but of course, it need not be a question as to which service children attend. There's no reason why they should not attend both, and I don't believe there's any reason they couldn't participate just as much as their peer-group in both services. The real issue comes after childhood,

One you go to dad's Church and they venerate icons, and when you go to mom's church and rail against "idols," the issue is going to come up much sooner.  Children are more aware than Calvninists would care to admit.

Yes, I guess that would be a problem! But then, do you think two people who attended such *very* different churches would ever get together? I can't see it myself.

Forgive me for interrupting a fascinating discussion. 

About this situation that you cannot imagine ever occurring, an iconodule Orthodox and iconoclast Protestant with romantic feelings toward one another and seriously considering marriage?  I am watching that one unfold in real life.

Please, continue.
We have such a couple: how iconoclast she became after the marriage I do not know, as they do have icons in the house. She grew up in a missionary famiy to Ireland (house church movement).  THe two older children, it is now announced, are being baptism Orthodox (12/13 and 11/12).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,666



« Reply #32 on: August 18, 2010, 07:29:02 PM »


Forgive me for interrupting a fascinating discussion. 

About this situation that you cannot imagine ever occurring, an iconodule Orthodox and iconoclast Protestant with romantic feelings toward one another and seriously considering marriage?  I am watching that one unfold in real life.

Please, continue.

Oh, that's lovely! Sadly, I may be the only one here who thinks so - but I wish your friends all the best. If they are serious about one another, they may find this is the first, almost subliminal sign that their beliefs are modifying. I think attraction is often about recongizing in someone else what would make you, yourself, a better person.
Unfortunately I'm not up for looking for it now, but a study came out last week which agrees all other previous ones I've seen: that couples that pray together has less divorce etc., the single biggest factor in divorce after/with money matters are differences in religion, etc.,
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 966



« Reply #33 on: August 18, 2010, 08:55:43 PM »


Forgive me for interrupting a fascinating discussion. 

About this situation that you cannot imagine ever occurring, an iconodule Orthodox and iconoclast Protestant with romantic feelings toward one another and seriously considering marriage?  I am watching that one unfold in real life.

Please, continue.

Oh, that's lovely! Sadly, I may be the only one here who thinks so - but I wish your friends all the best. If they are serious about one another, they may find this is the first, almost subliminal sign that their beliefs are modifying. I think attraction is often about recongizing in someone else what would make you, yourself, a better person.

If ever I am asked, I will be sure to pass along your rose-colored wishes...and katherineofdixie's advice.
Logged
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 966



« Reply #34 on: August 18, 2010, 08:56:17 PM »

I only wonder, though it's none of my business, what will happen when children are on the way. I've probably talked about it, but usually whatever compromise goes out the window once it becomes a reality.

I guess it must depend on how much congruity there is. I can't imagine being married to a Hindu (as mentioned above), because that is such a different belief system, I could not in good conscience support it. But if you think about the way we talk to little children, it is all quite simple within Christianity. You start by taking a child to hear a service, perhaps not even the whole service, and they learn some simple prayers, then they ask questions like 'did God have a wife' or 'did Noah use his boat after the flood' - none of this will present problems! I reckon it is only when a child is old enough to think for him or herself that you get into more complicated questions, and by that time, it's reasonable enough to explain that not everyone agrees on the answers.

I think you have over-simplified this. To even begin with, there is the very question of what service the children will be going to and to what extent they will be allowed to participate.

This is such an interesting discussion ...

I suppose you may be right, but of course, it need not be a question as to which service children attend. There's no reason why they should not attend both, and I don't believe there's any reason they couldn't participate just as much as their peer-group in both services. The real issue comes after childhood,

One you go to dad's Church and they venerate icons, and when you go to mom's church and rail against "idols," the issue is going to come up much sooner.  Children are more aware than Calvninists would care to admit.

Yes, I guess that would be a problem! But then, do you think two people who attended such *very* different churches would ever get together? I can't see it myself.

Forgive me for interrupting a fascinating discussion. 

About this situation that you cannot imagine ever occurring, an iconodule Orthodox and iconoclast Protestant with romantic feelings toward one another and seriously considering marriage?  I am watching that one unfold in real life.

Please, continue.

Friends of mine from Seattle, he a very faithful Ukrainian Eastern Rite Catholic (definitely Iconodule), and she a very faithful Baptist (definitely an Iconoclast) married approximately 20 years ago and now have three sons, the oldest 17 and the youngest, I believe, 10 or 9. They are a wonderful couple, most devoted to each other, with plenty of romantic feelings. She attends his Divine Liturgies. I don't know whether he attends her services, but I am sure she is happy either way.

People, stop being obsessed with things that are absolutely unimportant. Just sayin'  laugh

We have such a couple: how iconoclast she became after the marriage I do not know, as they do have icons in the house. She grew up in a missionary famiy to Ireland (house church movement).  THe two older children, it is now announced, are being baptism Orthodox (12/13 and 11/12).

So in both cases, the iconoclast finds that, as Liz put it, their beliefs are modifying?  Score two for the Orthodox.
Logged
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 966



« Reply #35 on: August 18, 2010, 08:56:40 PM »


Forgive me for interrupting a fascinating discussion. 

About this situation that you cannot imagine ever occurring, an iconodule Orthodox and iconoclast Protestant with romantic feelings toward one another and seriously considering marriage?  I am watching that one unfold in real life.

Please, continue.

Oh, that's lovely! Sadly, I may be the only one here who thinks so - but I wish your friends all the best. If they are serious about one another, they may find this is the first, almost subliminal sign that their beliefs are modifying. I think attraction is often about recongizing in someone else what would make you, yourself, a better person.
Unfortunately I'm not up for looking for it now, but a study came out last week which agrees all other previous ones I've seen: that couples that pray together has less divorce etc., the single biggest factor in divorce after/with money matters are differences in religion, etc.,

Earlier than last week: "Remember the famous counsel, the family that prays together, stays together? It's not just a come-on from preachers looking to fill pews. There is sociological research to back it up."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/04/AR2010060402011_2.html
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #36 on: August 18, 2010, 11:11:15 PM »

Children do not partake of the Sacraments in the Anglican Church; that's the point.

In the C of E, you mean?

They certainly do in ECUSA.

I thought the same was the case in the C of E?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #37 on: August 19, 2010, 06:47:51 AM »

Children do not partake of the Sacraments in the Anglican Church; that's the point.

In the C of E, you mean?

They certainly do in ECUSA.

I thought the same was the case in the C of E?

How interesting - what is the ECUSA?
In the Anglican Church, the only sacrament a child would participate in is baptism, but (as with marriage, in fact), this doesn't have to be baptism in the Anglican Church, in order for it to be valid. You could be baptised a Catholic and still attend Anglican services, and no-one would mind. I think - at least my vicar says so - that the party line is to encourage parents in mixed Christian relationships to view the 'other' church in as friendly a way as possible (though this is commonest with Anglican/Catholic marriages, which happen a lot).

Both the Orthodox and the Anglican clergy have told us that it is important that we pray together, and I assume they'd say the same about other couples in a similar situation.

I'm fascinated (and a bit apprehensive) about a relationship where one person is a real iconoclast and the other devout Orthodox - that sounds as if it would lead to fireworks! However, I'm sure they manage ... somehow ...
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #38 on: August 19, 2010, 06:49:26 AM »


So in both cases, the iconoclast finds that, as Liz put it, their beliefs are modifying?  Score two for the Orthodox.

It's good, isn't it? I think this is one of the great reasons for not shutting yourself off to the possibility of interfaith relationships - you never know when you might help someone discover something they never knew about, or never understood.
Logged
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #39 on: August 19, 2010, 08:52:09 AM »

ECUSA = The Episcopal Church

I have seen two interfaith marriages and they were both disasterous. The 1st was greek orthodox man and a roman catholic woman. The kids grew up in both churches. The son is now a practicing hindu, and the daughter is no longer anything she left orthodoxy for catholicism and left that and now has no faith.
The second is a russian orthodox and roman catholic man they are still married but have had explosive knockdown drag out fights for over 30 years they have four grown kids that have no desire to be a part of any religion as in their opinion religion made their lives unbearable at times.
Liz, unfortunately I think you are blinded by Anglicanism which is not compatible with genuine Orthodox belief. Let me give an example: if your orthodox husband received communion in an anglican church he is no longer a memeber of the Orthodox Church, he has excommunicated himself and therefore is in reality an anglican. How can you have kids when one faith allows for women priests and another does not believe that such a thing can exist and that such a concept is unchristian. nevermind the sexual issues that are ripping the anglican communion apart. Unlike anglicanism where one can essentially believe what they want ranging from anglo-catholics to hardcore calvinists, we Orthodox share the same faith we are not free to pick and choose our doctrines. Hope this helps to clear up your confusion.
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,300



« Reply #40 on: August 19, 2010, 09:46:30 AM »

Quote
Yes, I guess that would be a problem! But then, do you think two people who attended such *very* different churches would ever get together? I can't see it myself.
As others have shown, it happens all the time. Remember the old “opposites attract”?


Quote
but I do honestly think that there's also something important in sharing your spiritual life with *someone*, if you're made to be married, rather than wasting it on loneliness.
But if the couple’s beliefs are widely different, as in Orthodox and Protestant, then you will not be sharing your spiritual life.

You don’t have to answer, of course, because these are personal issues, but just think about it – will your children be baptized in the Orthodox Church? If they are, then they will not be able to participate fully in the Anglican Church. If you baptize them in the Anglican Church, then they will not be able to participate in the Orthodox Church, and your husband will be betraying promises he made to raise his children in the Orthodox Church, as will you.

As a child of a mixed marriage (Catholic-Protestant), let me assure you that children know from a fairly early age that Mommy and Daddy do not agree on going to church, and it is an uncomfortable and vaguely threatening feeling, at best. (However there were no knockdown dragout fights and hostility – my parents were obviously devoted to one another.)

But religious beliefs were important to them and deeply held.

One of the happiest days of my life was when I was baptized (because of disagreements my brother and I were not baptized as infants) and I heard my father’s footsteps on the walk outside the church that my mother and brother and I attended, and saw him come in the door. The next happiest day was when he began to attend church with us.

Believe me, it matters. And believe me, children know what’s going on.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #41 on: August 19, 2010, 11:12:25 AM »

ECUSA = The Episcopal Church

I have seen two interfaith marriages and they were both disasterous. The 1st was greek orthodox man and a roman catholic woman. The kids grew up in both churches. The son is now a practicing hindu, and the daughter is no longer anything she left orthodoxy for catholicism and left that and now has no faith.
The second is a russian orthodox and roman catholic man they are still married but have had explosive knockdown drag out fights for over 30 years they have four grown kids that have no desire to be a part of any religion as in their opinion religion made their lives unbearable at times.
Liz, unfortunately I think you are blinded by Anglicanism which is not compatible with genuine Orthodox belief. Let me give an example: if your orthodox husband received communion in an anglican church he is no longer a memeber of the Orthodox Church, he has excommunicated himself and therefore is in reality an anglican. How can you have kids when one faith allows for women priests and another does not believe that such a thing can exist and that such a concept is unchristian. nevermind the sexual issues that are ripping the anglican communion apart. Unlike anglicanism where one can essentially believe what they want ranging from anglo-catholics to hardcore calvinists, we Orthodox share the same faith we are not free to pick and choose our doctrines. Hope this helps to clear up your confusion.

I'm not confused, thank you very much. I don't think you really know very much about Anglicanism, and you're making it into a straw man to prove your points. Why on earth would an Orthodox man think of receiving communion in an Anglican Church? And how would this mysteriously make him Anglican?
Logged
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #42 on: August 19, 2010, 11:25:17 AM »

ECUSA = The Episcopal Church

I have seen two interfaith marriages and they were both disasterous. The 1st was greek orthodox man and a roman catholic woman. The kids grew up in both churches. The son is now a practicing hindu, and the daughter is no longer anything she left orthodoxy for catholicism and left that and now has no faith.
The second is a russian orthodox and roman catholic man they are still married but have had explosive knockdown drag out fights for over 30 years they have four grown kids that have no desire to be a part of any religion as in their opinion religion made their lives unbearable at times.
Liz, unfortunately I think you are blinded by Anglicanism which is not compatible with genuine Orthodox belief. Let me give an example: if your orthodox husband received communion in an anglican church he is no longer a memeber of the Orthodox Church, he has excommunicated himself and therefore is in reality an anglican. How can you have kids when one faith allows for women priests and another does not believe that such a thing can exist and that such a concept is unchristian. nevermind the sexual issues that are ripping the anglican communion apart. Unlike anglicanism where one can essentially believe what they want ranging from anglo-catholics to hardcore calvinists, we Orthodox share the same faith we are not free to pick and choose our doctrines. Hope this helps to clear up your confusion.

I'm not confused, thank you very much. I don't think you really know very much about Anglicanism, and you're making it into a straw man to prove your points. Why on earth would an Orthodox man think of receiving communion in an Anglican Church? And how would this mysteriously make him Anglican?

In our understanding by accepting the Eucharist of a group whether it is Orthodox, Catholic, or Anglican you are saying that you accept its faith and dogmas. That is exactly why we do not allow our members to commune at other churches. Please do not think that I am anti- anglican quite the contrary. I was just trying to point out why Orthodox would see it differently than you and that is all I meant by confusion (that we have different views). How could he accept communion in an Anglican Church? well they have open communion, meaning any one can partake, they even had a recent incident where communion was given to a dog.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2010, 11:27:04 AM by ICXCNIKA » Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #43 on: August 19, 2010, 11:31:04 AM »

ECUSA = The Episcopal Church

I have seen two interfaith marriages and they were both disasterous. The 1st was greek orthodox man and a roman catholic woman. The kids grew up in both churches. The son is now a practicing hindu, and the daughter is no longer anything she left orthodoxy for catholicism and left that and now has no faith.
The second is a russian orthodox and roman catholic man they are still married but have had explosive knockdown drag out fights for over 30 years they have four grown kids that have no desire to be a part of any religion as in their opinion religion made their lives unbearable at times.
Liz, unfortunately I think you are blinded by Anglicanism which is not compatible with genuine Orthodox belief. Let me give an example: if your orthodox husband received communion in an anglican church he is no longer a memeber of the Orthodox Church, he has excommunicated himself and therefore is in reality an anglican. How can you have kids when one faith allows for women priests and another does not believe that such a thing can exist and that such a concept is unchristian. nevermind the sexual issues that are ripping the anglican communion apart. Unlike anglicanism where one can essentially believe what they want ranging from anglo-catholics to hardcore calvinists, we Orthodox share the same faith we are not free to pick and choose our doctrines. Hope this helps to clear up your confusion.

I'm not confused, thank you very much. I don't think you really know very much about Anglicanism, and you're making it into a straw man to prove your points. Why on earth would an Orthodox man think of receiving communion in an Anglican Church? And how would this mysteriously make him Anglican?

In our understanding by accepting the Eucharist of a group whether it is Orthodox, Catholic, or Anglican you are saying that you accept its faith and dogmas. That is exactly why we do not allow our members to commune at other churches. Please do not think that I am anti- anglican quite the contrary. I was just trying to point out why Orthodox would see it differently than you and that is all I meant by confusion (that we have different views). How could he accept in an Anglican Church? well they have open communion they even had a recent incident where communion was given to a dog.

Thanks for explaining (though, I must say, whether or not you consider someone to be Anglican probably doesn't make them so!). But you still haven't explained why any Orthodox person would want to commune at an Anglican Church? And why they should need to? Doubtless they would be welcomed by the Anglican congregation, but it would cause some puzzlement!

I have not heard this 'story' about communion being given to a dog, but it is disrespectful to associate something like that with any religion. Please don't do so.
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #44 on: August 19, 2010, 11:39:42 AM »

Sorry, Katherine, I didn't see this post until just now!

Quote
Yes, I guess that would be a problem! But then, do you think two people who attended such *very* different churches would ever get together? I can't see it myself.
As others have shown, it happens all the time. Remember the old “opposites attract”?


Quote
but I do honestly think that there's also something important in sharing your spiritual life with *someone*, if you're made to be married, rather than wasting it on loneliness.
But if the couple’s beliefs are widely different, as in Orthodox and Protestant, then you will not be sharing your spiritual life.

I don't think that's true.

Quote
You don’t have to answer, of course, because these are personal issues, but just think about it – will your children be baptized in the Orthodox Church? If they are, then they will not be able to participate fully in the Anglican Church. If you baptize them in the Anglican Church, then they will not be able to participate in the Orthodox Church, and your husband will be betraying promises he made to raise his children in the Orthodox Church, as will you.

They'll be baptized in the Orthodox Church - why would this stop them from participating just as fully as other children in the Anglican Church? Both my vicar and my partner's priest expect that that is what they will do. Of course, if once they are older (teenage or adult), if they wish to become communicant members of the Anglican Church, they will have to make that choice, and will no longer be able to be part of the Orthodox Church. But at that point, my husband is pretty satisfied he will have done his best to raise them in the Orthodox Church!

Incidentally, I haven't yet promised to raise children in the Orthodox Church, and the priest knows that if we have them, I'll take them to my services too (apart from anything else, I can't imagine they'll conveniently wish not  to be fed just at the right time every Sunday!).

Quote
As a child of a mixed marriage (Catholic-Protestant), let me assure you that children know from a fairly early age that Mommy and Daddy do not agree on going to church, and it is an uncomfortable and vaguely threatening feeling, at best. (However there were no knockdown dragout fights and hostility – my parents were obviously devoted to one another.)

I don't wish to blame your parents, but maybe they should have thought about this earlier? My partner and I don't disagree; we discuss. I'm the child of a sort of 'mixed' marriage, in that mum is Anglican and dad is firmly atheist, and I have friends whose parents are Catholic/Jewish, Catholic/Protestant, and Sikh/Anglican. I've not come across the problems you describe. It may partly be to do with the different attitude to religion as a whole in the UK - it's not always a good thing that British people don't like to talk about religion, but it does mean that there's less of a sense that it should be argued about.

Quote
But religious beliefs were important to them and deeply held.

One of the happiest days of my life was when I was baptized (because of disagreements my brother and I were not baptized as infants) and I heard my father’s footsteps on the walk outside the church that my mother and brother and I attended, and saw him come in the door. The next happiest day was when he began to attend church with us.

Believe me, it matters. And believe me, children know what’s going on.


I remember knowing what was going on when I was little. But it never upset me or confused me. It's sad, now, to hear my dad get cynical about organized religion (which he does), but I know that when he was a teenager he lost his faith, and he can't seem to get it back. I wouldn't ever want to blame him for that.
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,300



« Reply #45 on: August 19, 2010, 11:42:41 AM »

Quote
I have not heard this 'story' about communion being given to a dog, but it is disrespectful to associate something like that with any religion. Please don't do so.

Here's the thread on that incident:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28961.0.html
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #46 on: August 19, 2010, 11:49:10 AM »

Quote
I have not heard this 'story' about communion being given to a dog, but it is disrespectful to associate something like that with any religion. Please don't do so.

Here's the thread on that incident:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28961.0.html


I didn't express myself very clearly, but please don't link me to this sort of offensive rubbish. H

Edited for moratorium violation - mike.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 03:08:10 AM by mike » Logged
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #47 on: August 19, 2010, 12:02:52 PM »

Quote
I have not heard this 'story' about communion being given to a dog, but it is disrespectful to associate something like that with any religion. Please don't do so.

Here's the thread on that incident:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28961.0.html


I didn't express myself very clearly, but please don't link me to this sort of offensive rubbish.


No one linked it to you personally, however, most of the congregants seemed to think it was a good idea. Its rather sad and besides the point. The Anglican Communion will give the sacrament to anyone whether they believe in sacraments or not or in the resurrection etc. If you know of any instance of an orthodox priest doing something inappropriate please let his bishop know...corrective action up to and perhaps including defrockment will occur. Our Church takes these things very seriously.
Edited for moratorium violation - mike.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 03:09:37 AM by mike » Logged
Rosehip
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 2,760



« Reply #48 on: August 19, 2010, 12:03:11 PM »

Quote
I have not heard this 'story' about communion being given to a dog, but it is disrespectful to associate something like that with any religion. Please don't do so.

Here's the thread on that incident:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28961.0.html


I didn't express myself very clearly, but please don't link me to this sort of offensive rubbish.

The sad thing is, Liz, this type of incident is almost symbolic of what has become of the modern Anglican Church in North America. Believe me, I have discussed this situation (which occured at a parish not far from where  I live) with many of my Anglican and former Anglican friends, and this was their assessment of the situation. BTW, increasing numbers of Anglicans are becoming Orthodox over here due to this very modernistic mentality.

Edited for moratorium violation - mike.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 03:10:03 AM by mike » Logged

+ Our dear sister Martha (Rosehip) passed away on Dec 20, 2010.  May her memory be eternal! +
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #49 on: August 19, 2010, 12:42:49 PM »

Quote
I have not heard this 'story' about communion being given to a dog, but it is disrespectful to associate something like that with any religion. Please don't do so.

Here's the thread on that incident:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28961.0.html


I didn't express myself very clearly, but please don't link me to this sort of offensive rubbish.


No one linked it to you personally, however, most of the congregants seemed to think it was a good idea. Its rather sad and besides the point. The Anglican Communion will give the sacrament to anyone whether they believe in sacraments or not or in the resurrection etc. If you know of any instance of an orthodox priest doing something inappropriate please let his bishop know...corrective action up to and perhaps including defrockment will occur. Our Church takes these things very seriously.

The Anglican Communion will invite anyone who is a communicant member of his or her own Church, to receive the Eucharist. Out of curiosity: if I went into an Orthodox church in a strange town, participated in the service properly, and went to receive the Eucharist, would the priest refuse it and demand to see my certificate of Orthodox baptism?

I think the church where communion was offered to a dog (if indeed this is a true story, which I'm not in a position to judge) have quite clearly proved they are not Christian. If someone called themselves an Orthodox priest and went around doing the same, you'd surely assume he was mad and you wouldn't judge the rest of the Church by his actions.

Edited for moratorium violation - mike.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 03:10:43 AM by mike » Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #50 on: August 19, 2010, 12:44:06 PM »

Quote
I have not heard this 'story' about communion being given to a dog, but it is disrespectful to associate something like that with any religion. Please don't do so.

Here's the thread on that incident:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28961.0.html


I didn't express myself very clearly, but please don't link me to this sort of offensive rubbish.

The sad thing is, Liz, this type of incident is almost symbolic of what has become of the modern Anglican Church in North America. Believe me, I have discussed this situation (which occured at a parish not far from where  I live) with many of my Anglican and former Anglican friends, and this was their assessment of the situation. BTW, increasing numbers of Anglicans are becoming Orthodox over here due to this very modernistic mentality.

That is terribly sad, but thanks for explaining it, Rosehip. I wouldn't call this 'modernistic' - I'd have a stronger term for it!

Edited for moratorium violation - mike.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 03:11:36 AM by mike » Logged
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #51 on: August 19, 2010, 12:58:00 PM »

Quote
I have not heard this 'story' about communion being given to a dog, but it is disrespectful to associate something like that with any religion. Please don't do so.

Here's the thread on that incident:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28961.0.html


I didn't express myself very clearly, but please don't link me to this sort of offensive rubbish.


No one linked it to you personally, however, most of the congregants seemed to think it was a good idea. Its rather sad and besides the point. The Anglican Communion will give the sacrament to anyone whether they believe in sacraments or not or in the resurrection etc. If you know of any instance of an orthodox priest doing something inappropriate please let his bishop know...corrective action up to and perhaps including defrockment will occur. Our Church takes these things very seriously.

The Anglican Communion will invite anyone who is a communicant member of his or her own Church, to receive the Eucharist. Out of curiosity: if I went into an Orthodox church in a strange town, participated in the service properly, and went to receive the Eucharist, would the priest refuse it and demand to see my certificate of Orthodox baptism?

I think the church where communion was offered to a dog (if indeed this is a true story, which I'm not in a position to judge) have quite clearly proved they are not Christian. If someone called themselves an Orthodox priest and went around doing the same, you'd surely assume he was mad and you wouldn't judge the rest of the Church by his actions.
I cannot say about the CofE but my experience in North America is that they will allow anyone to receive whether Anglican or not.If you went to an Orthodox Church the priest would not give you communion unless he knew you were Orthodox. It is suggested that you contact the priest to let him know that you will be visiting this way he is not surprised by you coming up to the chalice. If however, if you go up and he doesn't know you he will ask if you are Orthodox and if you are properly prepared to receive. If you are not he will allow you to kiss the chalice only.

Edited for moratorium violation - mike.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 03:11:58 AM by mike » Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #52 on: August 19, 2010, 01:06:53 PM »


I cannot say about the CofE but my experience in North America is that they will allow anyone to receive whether Anglican or not.If you went to an Orthodox Church the priest would not give you communion unless he knew you were Orthodox. It is suggested that you contact the priest to let him know that you will be visiting this way he is not surprised by you coming up to the chalice. If however, if you go up and he doesn't know you he will ask if you are Orthodox and if you are properly prepared to receive. If you are not he will allow you to kiss the chalice only.

Yes, the Anglican Church (as I said) will invite anyone who's a communicant member of their own Church to come and receive communion. The point is, they leave it up to you to be honest and act in good faith - it's not that they don't care, it's to do with being true to the spirit of Christ's sacrifice and his ministry, which didn't cling to the old Jewish laws restricting who could touch whom, and who could participate in what. That's the thinking as I've heard it explained, anyway.

You see, as far as I can tell, it'd be just as easy to lie to an Orthodox priest ('oh, yes, of course I'm Orthodox, I worship at St. Nicholas in Faraway Town, you must know it'), as it would be to lie to an Anglican one. The only difference is that, if you're in an Anglican Church, the understanding is that communicant members of all churches are automatically eligible to receive the Eucharist - that's not to do with not caring, but to do with our different attitudes towards community and the One True Church.

What I'm getting at is, there is a sincerity in the Anglican approach, which I think you are not seeing.
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #53 on: August 19, 2010, 01:11:53 PM »

You know (and it's something I'm bad at), we'll get pulled up for wandering off the thread topic in a minute, so to bring it back:

I would think that, whatever difficulties we might expect in Orthodox/Anglican mixed parenting, it must be far harder for Orthodox/Catholic couples. Or would the Orthodox Church feel differently about this, as the Catholic  Church shares some history with the Orthodox?

Logged
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #54 on: August 19, 2010, 01:19:18 PM »


I cannot say about the CofE but my experience in North America is that they will allow anyone to receive whether Anglican or not.If you went to an Orthodox Church the priest would not give you communion unless he knew you were Orthodox. It is suggested that you contact the priest to let him know that you will be visiting this way he is not surprised by you coming up to the chalice. If however, if you go up and he doesn't know you he will ask if you are Orthodox and if you are properly prepared to receive. If you are not he will allow you to kiss the chalice only.

Yes, the Anglican Church (as I said) will invite anyone who's a communicant member of their own Church to come and receive communion. The point is, they leave it up to you to be honest and act in good faith - it's not that they don't care, it's to do with being true to the spirit of Christ's sacrifice and his ministry, which didn't cling to the old Jewish laws restricting who could touch whom, and who could participate in what. That's the thinking as I've heard it explained, anyway.

You see, as far as I can tell, it'd be just as easy to lie to an Orthodox priest ('oh, yes, of course I'm Orthodox, I worship at St. Nicholas in Faraway Town, you must know it'), as it would be to lie to an Anglican one. The only difference is that, if you're in an Anglican Church, the understanding is that communicant members of all churches are automatically eligible to receive the Eucharist - that's not to do with not caring, but to do with our different attitudes towards community and the One True Church.

What I'm getting at is, there is a sincerity in the Anglican approach, which I think you are not seeing.
A person could lie to the Orthdox Priest but then they will be liable before God both for lieing and recieving unworthily, the priest has done what he could to protect both the sacrament and them. If I am reading what you wrote correctly than you admit that the AC offers communion to anyone that is a member of their own church the only problem with that is that there are plenty of anglicans and other protestants that don't believe in sacraments or the resurrection. A qoute from an article I am currently reading about the AC by a former member: "How can a 'communion' call itself a 'communion', when its members can't even agree on what Communion is?"
« Last Edit: August 19, 2010, 01:25:45 PM by ICXCNIKA » Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #55 on: August 19, 2010, 01:30:00 PM »


I cannot say about the CofE but my experience in North America is that they will allow anyone to receive whether Anglican or not.If you went to an Orthodox Church the priest would not give you communion unless he knew you were Orthodox. It is suggested that you contact the priest to let him know that you will be visiting this way he is not surprised by you coming up to the chalice. If however, if you go up and he doesn't know you he will ask if you are Orthodox and if you are properly prepared to receive. If you are not he will allow you to kiss the chalice only.

Yes, the Anglican Church (as I said) will invite anyone who's a communicant member of their own Church to come and receive communion. The point is, they leave it up to you to be honest and act in good faith - it's not that they don't care, it's to do with being true to the spirit of Christ's sacrifice and his ministry, which didn't cling to the old Jewish laws restricting who could touch whom, and who could participate in what. That's the thinking as I've heard it explained, anyway.

You see, as far as I can tell, it'd be just as easy to lie to an Orthodox priest ('oh, yes, of course I'm Orthodox, I worship at St. Nicholas in Faraway Town, you must know it'), as it would be to lie to an Anglican one. The only difference is that, if you're in an Anglican Church, the understanding is that communicant members of all churches are automatically eligible to receive the Eucharist - that's not to do with not caring, but to do with our different attitudes towards community and the One True Church.

What I'm getting at is, there is a sincerity in the Anglican approach, which I think you are not seeing.
You could lie to the Orthdox Priest but then you will be liable before God both for lieing and recieving unworthily, the priest has done what he could to protect both the sacrament and you.

It would be exactly the same if you lied to an Anglican vicar, or deceived him by coming to receive communion either in an unfit state, or while not being a communicant member of your church.

Quote
If I am reading what you wrote correctly than you admit that the AC offers communion to anyone that is a member of their own church the only problem with that is that there are plenty of anglicans and other protestants that don't believe in sacraments or the resurrection.

No - I am sure there are no Anglicans who don't believe in the resurrection! It would go against the Anglican Creed, so quite impossible. It's true people differ in the way they understand the sacraments.

Quote
A qoute from an article I am currently reading about the AC by a former member: "How can a 'communion' call itself a 'communion', when its members can't even agree on what Communion is?"


Well, this is an interesting question, but I'm not wise enough to answer! I don't think anyone quite understands what communion is, except that it's a holy mystery.

It's a constant problem, in my opinion: the Orthodox Church is very good at defining what belief should be, and protecting that - but in the process, to me, it loses the spirit of inclusiveness at the root of Christianity. The Anglican Church is very good at being inclusive, but in doing so, all too often, risks appearing to condone heresy or misbelief.
Logged
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #56 on: August 19, 2010, 01:33:47 PM »

"No - I am sure there are no Anglicans who don't believe in the resurrection! It would go against the Anglican Creed, so quite impossible. It's true people differ in the way they understand the sacraments."

Then you have never heard of Bishop Spong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong

Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #57 on: August 19, 2010, 01:38:29 PM »

Liz,


If you mess up and partake of an Orthodox communion by accident, then you gotta stay Orthodox for life. There is no going back after that.

« Last Edit: August 19, 2010, 01:41:38 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #58 on: August 19, 2010, 01:40:57 PM »

Liz,


If you mess up and partake of an Orthodox communion by accident, then you gotta stay Orthodox for life. There is no going back after that.

 Cheesy
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,300



« Reply #59 on: August 19, 2010, 01:43:13 PM »

Quote
I have not heard this 'story' about communion being given to a dog, but it is disrespectful to associate something like that with any religion. Please don't do so.

Here's the thread on that incident:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28961.0.html


I didn't link to it to hurt you or offend you. I linked to it because I inferred from your comment (erroneously?) that you had not heard it and that you thought the story was a malicious lie - when it was not. My apologies if I interpreted your comment in error.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #60 on: August 19, 2010, 01:44:06 PM »

"No - I am sure there are no Anglicans who don't believe in the resurrection! It would go against the Anglican Creed, so quite impossible. It's true people differ in the way they understand the sacraments."

Then you have never heard of Bishop Spong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong



The Anglican Creed states, 'I believe ... in Jesus Christ ... he suffered death, and was buried. On the third day, he rose again'. There is no way around that. If you are Anglican, you profess faith in the Resurrection. Anything else, and you are not Anglican, nor Christian.
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #61 on: August 19, 2010, 01:46:00 PM »

Quote
I have not heard this 'story' about communion being given to a dog, but it is disrespectful to associate something like that with any religion. Please don't do so.

Here's the thread on that incident:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28961.0.html


I didn't link to it to hurt you or offend you. I linked to it because I inferred from your comment (erroneously?) that you had not heard it and that you thought the story was a malicious lie - when it was not. My apologies if I interpreted your comment in error.

No need to apologize Katherine - I just meant I didn't want to read about something so offensive - true, or untrue, it's really upsetting. In the same way that I think it'd be upsetting to you if you heard of someone who was claiming to be Orthodox, but actually doing things that are an affront to the faith.

Logged
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #62 on: August 19, 2010, 01:47:06 PM »

"No - I am sure there are no Anglicans who don't believe in the resurrection! It would go against the Anglican Creed, so quite impossible. It's true people differ in the way they understand the sacraments."

Then you have never heard of Bishop Spong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong



The Anglican Creed states, 'I believe ... in Jesus Christ ... he suffered death, and was buried. On the third day, he rose again'. There is no way around that. If you are Anglican, you profess faith in the Resurrection. Anything else, and you are not Anglican, nor Christian.
And yet he was a bishop in the anglican communion for 21 years and openly taught these things the whole time with no action taken against him. So its fine to say that he wasn't really an Anglican but that is contrary to the facts.
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #63 on: August 19, 2010, 01:53:30 PM »

"No - I am sure there are no Anglicans who don't believe in the resurrection! It would go against the Anglican Creed, so quite impossible. It's true people differ in the way they understand the sacraments."

Then you have never heard of Bishop Spong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong



The Anglican Creed states, 'I believe ... in Jesus Christ ... he suffered death, and was buried. On the third day, he rose again'. There is no way around that. If you are Anglican, you profess faith in the Resurrection. Anything else, and you are not Anglican, nor Christian.
And yet he was a bishop in the anglican communion for 21 years and openly taught these things the whole time with no action taken against him. So its fine to say that he wasn't really an Anglican but that is contrary to the facts.

Somehow, I think the 'facts' of the Creed are a little stronger than that!

Look, I don't know how this feels to you, but I feel as if we're getting further and further away from the thread title, which wasn't about the differences between Anglicanism and Orthodoxy, or about What Is Wrong With the Anglican Church.
Logged
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #64 on: August 19, 2010, 04:36:58 PM »

I agree with you Liza. I think it would be perfectly appropriate for the priest to tell them that if they want to be members they have to be full members or if they want to join the other church then do so. None of this we're Orthodox this week and something different the next. It seems to me rather selfish on the parents part. That is why i would discourage any interfaith dating or marriage.


I'm sorry....am I missing something here?

Are you seriously encouraging children to split their time equally between faiths...and saying this is a "good" thing?

This always upsets me.

In my Orthodox parish...I have those families who have married outside the Church - to other Christian denominations.  They freely take there kids here and there...and their comments are the same..."it doesn't matter, Catholic and Orthodox is basically the same."

Huh?

Why did you bother to have your children baptized in the Orthodox Church only to take them regularly to R. Catholic or Byz Catholic parishes, where the kids actually partake of Communion...then on special holidays drag them back to the Orthodox Church.

What gives?

Pick one and stick to it.

Because if you truly think that it's okay to go from one to the other...than you really are neither....or you simply do not understand the Faith you propose to be.


Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #65 on: August 19, 2010, 05:02:16 PM »

I agree with you Liza. I think it would be perfectly appropriate for the priest to tell them that if they want to be members they have to be full members or if they want to join the other church then do so. None of this we're Orthodox this week and something different the next. It seems to me rather selfish on the parents part. That is why i would discourage any interfaith dating or marriage.

But plenty of mixed-faith couples wouldn't consider the idea of pretending to be 'Orthodox this week and something different the next'. As you can tell, my partner and I wouldn't. So why assume this is the default for mixed faith relationships?
Logged
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #66 on: August 19, 2010, 05:23:55 PM »

Who is pretending? We have seen it with our own eyes. So are your children Orthodox? So they reject open communion as practised by your Church along with all the other variants that are contrary to Holy Orthodoxy?

I agree with you Liza. I think it would be perfectly appropriate for the priest to tell them that if they want to be members they have to be full members or if they want to join the other church then do so. None of this we're Orthodox this week and something different the next. It seems to me rather selfish on the parents part. That is why i would discourage any interfaith dating or marriage.

But plenty of mixed-faith couples wouldn't consider the idea of pretending to be 'Orthodox this week and something different the next'. As you can tell, my partner and I wouldn't. So why assume this is the default for mixed faith relationships?
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #67 on: August 19, 2010, 05:31:17 PM »

Who is pretending? We have seen it with our own eyes. So are your children Orthodox? So they reject open communion as practised by your Church along with all the other variants that are contrary to Holy Orthodoxy?

I'm sorry, I think as this thread has split, I forgot to explain my situation. We don't have children yet; we've only been married a couple of weeks. But, of course, we have both seen things too, and they appear very different from what you've seen. Again, I would ask whether this might be to do with US/UK differences?

If I did have children, they could not 'reject' communion, as they would be children!
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #68 on: August 19, 2010, 06:55:01 PM »

How interesting - what is the ECUSA?

The "Episcopal Church in the United States of American", i.e. the province of the Anglican Communion in the USA.

So it is the case in my own province of the Anglican Communion that children are served Communion.

I thought it was in the English province as well.  Undecided
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #69 on: August 19, 2010, 06:55:02 PM »

How can you have kids when one faith allows for women priests and another does not believe that such a thing can exist and that such a concept is unchristian.

That's the primary difference that comes to your mind? Oy.  Roll Eyes
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #70 on: August 19, 2010, 06:55:02 PM »

And how would this mysteriously make him Anglican?

From our perspective, Holy Communion is an expression of a whole, full, and integral faith. If you take Communion at a church it means either that you believe what that church teaches or that you are a hypocrite.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #71 on: August 19, 2010, 06:55:02 PM »

well they have open communion, meaning any one can partake,

Not exactly. It really varies. The international standard is to only admit baptized members of a Christian church (I don't know if maybe some Anglo-Catholics may have an even more conservative policy). The more liberal policies mostly show up in the US and Canada. Some admit self-identifying Christians regardless of whether they are baptized or not. The policy of the local diocese is to admit "all who seek Christ". More extremely, there are a number of individual congregations who simply welcome all.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #72 on: August 19, 2010, 06:55:02 PM »

I have not heard this 'story' about communion being given to a dog, but it is disrespectful to associate something like that with any religion. Please don't do so.

Well, it was not in the Church of England. But he is right that there was a scandal caused by an Anglican Communion priest serving communion to a dog.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #73 on: August 19, 2010, 07:02:17 PM »

I was trying to keep it simple. If you can think of a better example I would love to hear it.

How can you have kids when one faith allows for women priests and another does not believe that such a thing can exist and that such a concept is unchristian.

That's the primary difference that comes to your mind? Oy.  Roll Eyes
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #74 on: August 19, 2010, 07:10:23 PM »

How interesting - what is the ECUSA?

The "Episcopal Church in the United States of American", i.e. the province of the Anglican Communion in the USA.

So it is the case in my own province of the Anglican Communion that children are served Communion.

I thought it was in the English province as well.  Undecided

No, I don't think so. I guess if it were common, that would be problematic.
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #75 on: August 19, 2010, 07:11:03 PM »

And how would this mysteriously make him Anglican?

From our perspective, Holy Communion is an expression of a whole, full, and integral faith. If you take Communion at a church it means either that you believe what that church teaches or that you are a hypocrite.

Yes, but surely, an outside perspective is irrelevant here?
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #76 on: August 19, 2010, 07:12:31 PM »

I have not heard this 'story' about communion being given to a dog, but it is disrespectful to associate something like that with any religion. Please don't do so.

Well, it was not in the Church of England. But he is right that there was a scandal caused by an Anglican Communion priest serving communion to a dog.

I have responded to this before, but I will say again: this is deeply offensive, and I like it no more than you.

Edited for moratorium violation - mike.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 03:12:29 AM by mike » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,666



« Reply #77 on: August 19, 2010, 08:11:12 PM »

I have not heard this 'story' about communion being given to a dog, but it is disrespectful to associate something like that with any religion. Please don't do so.

Well, it was not in the Church of England. But he is right that there was a scandal caused by an Anglican Communion priest serving communion to a dog.

I have responded to this before, but I will say again: this is deeply offensive, and I like it no more than you.
You know what happens in Russia?

Edited for moratorium violation - mike.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 03:12:54 AM by mike » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #78 on: August 19, 2010, 08:11:54 PM »

And how would this mysteriously make him Anglican?

From our perspective, Holy Communion is an expression of a whole, full, and integral faith. If you take Communion at a church it means either that you believe what that church teaches or that you are a hypocrite.

Yes, but surely, an outside perspective is irrelevant here?

Can you be more specific...whose outside perspective?
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #79 on: August 19, 2010, 08:26:13 PM »

I was trying to keep it simple. If you can think of a better example I would love to hear it.

How can you have kids when one faith allows for women priests and another does not believe that such a thing can exist and that such a concept is unchristian.

That's the primary difference that comes to your mind? Oy.  Roll Eyes

Most of the stuff in the Thirty Nine Articles is more significant than that.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #80 on: August 19, 2010, 08:26:13 PM »

(if indeed this is a true story, which I'm not in a position to judge)

Trust me on this, it is.

If someone called themselves an Orthodox priest and went around doing the same, you'd surely assume he was mad and you wouldn't judge the rest of the Church by his actions.

No. But it certainly is not a confusing anomaly with respect to Anglicanism in North America; it's actually a rather logical and understandable trajectory of trends I see among Anglicans here. And it really started in England with the "all baptized Christians" policy.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #81 on: August 19, 2010, 08:26:14 PM »

it's to do with being true to the spirit of Christ's sacrifice and his ministry, which didn't cling to the old Jewish laws restricting who could touch whom, and who could participate in what.

That reasoning is not applicable. And if it was, then non-baptized people should be allowed to partake of communion. But that is not the case; the standard policy of the Anglican Communion is to allow baptized Christians, but not anyone who is not baptized.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #82 on: August 19, 2010, 08:26:14 PM »

I would think that, whatever difficulties we might expect in Orthodox/Anglican mixed parenting, it must be far harder for Orthodox/Catholic couples.

Actually, yes, as the Romans recognize some form of superiority of their own church over any other, which Anglicans do not.

Or would the Orthodox Church feel differently about this, as the Catholic  Church shares some history with the Orthodox?

Not really. Sacramentally speaking, the approach between two in a marriage wouldn't be really any different.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #83 on: August 19, 2010, 08:26:14 PM »

No - I am sure there are no Anglicans who don't believe in the resurrection!

Well, you are welcome to deny them as legitimate Anglicans, but there certainly are plenty of Anglicans (particularly in North America) in good standing in a dioceses who deny the fleshly resurrection of Christ. I've even met a number of them and debated this topic with them.

It would go against the Anglican Creed, so quite impossible.

That's very naive of you. There are plenty of Anglicans who simply don't believe in various parts of the Creed.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #84 on: August 19, 2010, 08:26:14 PM »

The Anglican Creed states, 'I believe ... in Jesus Christ ... he suffered death, and was buried. On the third day, he rose again'. There is no way around that. If you are Anglican, you profess faith in the Resurrection. Anything else, and you are not Anglican, nor Christian.

I like your attitude. Unfortunately probably the majority of the people in the Anglican Communion recognize John Spong as a legitimate Anglican and even a legitimate Anglican Bishop at that.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #85 on: August 19, 2010, 08:26:14 PM »

If I did have children, they could not 'reject' communion, as they would be children!

We serve Communion to children from as young as possible in the East.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #86 on: August 19, 2010, 08:26:14 PM »

And how would this mysteriously make him Anglican?

From our perspective, Holy Communion is an expression of a whole, full, and integral faith. If you take Communion at a church it means either that you believe what that church teaches or that you are a hypocrite.

Yes, but surely, an outside perspective is irrelevant here?

Pardon me? I don't understand what you are meaning.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #87 on: August 19, 2010, 08:26:14 PM »

I have not heard this 'story' about communion being given to a dog, but it is disrespectful to associate something like that with any religion. Please don't do so.

Well, it was not in the Church of England. But he is right that there was a scandal caused by an Anglican Communion priest serving communion to a dog.

I have responded to this before, but I will say again: this is deeply offensive, and I like it no more than you.

I think you may overestimate how offended I would be.

Edited for moratorium violation - mike.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 03:13:21 AM by mike » Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #88 on: August 19, 2010, 08:26:14 PM »

As for Anglicans taking Communion in an Orthodox church, I have experienced them not being allowed in most cases, but a few weeks ago I experienced the local Armenian bishop openly welcoming an Anglican to Communion.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,517


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #89 on: August 20, 2010, 12:55:39 AM »

There are two major issues that would be fairly insurmountable explaining to children. (George wouldn't have this issue since he doesn't believe that children should be taught about faith at all). The first would be the orthodox view of salvation, the second would be the orthodox view of hell. Those two issues will always be an issue, and a very confusing one at that. You can not teach that "mommy believes this and daddy believes that" without confusing the heck out of the child. Either raise the child orthodox, or raise the child Anglican. Maybe you can make it "work" for your children. But the children will grow up quite confused and may eventually become quite angry and leave all faith altogether. The issues of communion are great as well. You can not have your children partake at one church one week and another a different week. Kids don't stay little forever Wink A child would not be allowed to partake of Anglican and Orthodox Eucharists concurrently. This would place the child in a position where they will have to choose between mom and dad at some point. They will have to decide that one or the other is correct. That is not a fair position to put a child in, it simply isn't healthy. You place the child into a situation of religious divorce whether you intend to or not.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,517


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #90 on: August 20, 2010, 12:57:43 AM »

At least here in my area you can not just lie to a priest to be allowed to commune. If I want to visit another parish I have to pre-arrange with my priest and the priest of the parish I am visiting in order to be allowed to partake. Our priest helps run various pan-orthodox services around the country. The priests in my area are all in quite close contact, even across jurisdictions.
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Posts: 6,888



« Reply #91 on: August 20, 2010, 01:09:36 AM »

As for Anglicans taking Communion in an Orthodox church, I have experienced them not being allowed in most cases, but a few weeks ago I experienced the local Armenian bishop openly welcoming an Anglican to Communion.

Maybe he was just ignorant of what Anglicanism is or has become.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #92 on: August 20, 2010, 03:14:03 AM »

I discourage you violation the moratorium, unless you really want a 30-day-long-lasting green dot.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #93 on: August 20, 2010, 10:45:51 AM »

Liz,

In 2006 the CofE allowed for children to receive the Eucharist even if they have not been confirmed. It is up to the local bishop to institute the practice in his diocese. However, once a child has been allowed to receive they may receive in any parish in the CofE even if the diocese the child is currently in has not instituted this policy. I am surprised that this is a rather new phenomenon in the UK. Quite different from what I have experienced in Anglican Communion Churches here. It is towards the bottom of the page. Also, Roman Catholic children also receive First Communion before confirmation. If I remember correctly First Confession & Communion are usually received in about the 2nd grade of primary school so they are about 8-10 years old. Confirmation at least in the diocese that I am familiar with was usually performed in 7th grade so somewhere between 12-14 years of age.

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/education/children/

and I don't believe there's any reason they couldn't participate just as much as their peer-group in both services. The real issue comes after childhood, when the individual must make a decision - but then, you'd hope anyone making adult decisions about faith would do so carefully. With my partner and me, there is nothing whatsoever that would prevent a child from participating in both Orthodox and Anglican services just as fully as anyone else.

As far as I know, your partner/husband (sorry, I don't remember exactly what stage you are at in this) is essentially required by his church to forbid his children form partaking of the "Sacraments" in your own.

Children do not partake of the Sacraments in the Anglican Church; that's the point. The only one would be the christening, and an Orthodox ceremony would be as valid as an Anglican one.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 10:47:53 AM by ICXCNIKA » Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #94 on: August 20, 2010, 01:42:15 PM »

If I did have children, they could not 'reject' communion, as they would be children!

We serve Communion to children from as young as possible in the East.

So what's the problem then?
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #95 on: August 20, 2010, 01:44:44 PM »

Liz,

In 2006 the CofE allowed for children to receive the Eucharist even if they have not been confirmed. It is up to the local bishop to institute the practice in his diocese. However, once a child has been allowed to receive they may receive in any parish in the CofE even if the diocese the child is currently in has not instituted this policy. I am surprised that this is a rather new phenomenon in the UK. Quite different from what I have experienced in Anglican Communion Churches here. It is towards the bottom of the page. Also, Roman Catholic children also receive First Communion before confirmation. If I remember correctly First Confession & Communion are usually received in about the 2nd grade of primary school so they are about 8-10 years old. Confirmation at least in the diocese that I am familiar with was usually performed in 7th grade so somewhere between 12-14 years of age.

Yes, but it doesn't take genius to realize that, if you're trying to bring up a child in a mixed marriage, you simply decline the option - which was, in any case, mainly instituted to make older children feel included. Confirmation in my community usually happens 13-21. It's an unusual bishop who'd confirm a child of 8 - perhaps you are thinking of Catholic Churches?
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #96 on: August 20, 2010, 01:45:51 PM »

I discourage you violation the moratorium, unless you really want a 30-day-long-lasting green dot.

I'm so sorry; I haven't been on the forum for a while and so missed this. Thanks for correcting me.
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #97 on: August 20, 2010, 01:48:36 PM »

There are two major issues that would be fairly insurmountable explaining to children. (George wouldn't have this issue since he doesn't believe that children should be taught about faith at all). The first would be the orthodox view of salvation, the second would be the orthodox view of hell. Those two issues will always be an issue, and a very confusing one at that. You can not teach that "mommy believes this and daddy believes that" without confusing the heck out of the child. Either raise the child orthodox, or raise the child Anglican. Maybe you can make it "work" for your children. But the children will grow up quite confused and may eventually become quite angry and leave all faith altogether. The issues of communion are great as well. You can not have your children partake at one church one week and another a different week. Kids don't stay little forever Wink A child would not be allowed to partake of Anglican and Orthodox Eucharists concurrently. This would place the child in a position where they will have to choose between mom and dad at some point. They will have to decide that one or the other is correct. That is not a fair position to put a child in, it simply isn't healthy. You place the child into a situation of religious divorce whether you intend to or not.

I just don't understand this assumption that children cannot understand two views at once. It speaks poorly of the state of education in America, perhaps, because I've never encountered problems with it here.

I suppose you are right that, if we had a child whose mental abilities were very limited, it would be unfair to put him or her in this situation, and I think then we would simply take him or her to the Orthodox Church.
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #98 on: August 20, 2010, 01:53:02 PM »

Who is pretending? We have seen it with our own eyes. So are your children Orthodox? So they reject open communion as practised by your Church along with all the other variants that are contrary to Holy Orthodoxy?

Sorry, I don't understand what you're asking?

This thread is moving fast! I'm sorry if I'm not answering everything.
Logged
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #99 on: August 20, 2010, 01:53:36 PM »

Liz,

I think you may be in a unique situation, for the short term at least. Here in the US the Episcopal Church (Anglican Province) administers communion to all baptized Christians regardless of age. It seems that the CofE is moving in that direction or else they wouldn't have instituted this policy. The problem is that if you are trying to raise your children in the Orthodox Church and then take them to an Anglican parish and other kids are receiving, which probably will become more regular, how would they feel? Will they feel pressured? I think you misread my post as I did not say that Roman's Confirm at 8 rather between 12-14 years of age (if they are properly prepared).

Liz,

In 2006 the CofE allowed for children to receive the Eucharist even if they have not been confirmed. It is up to the local bishop to institute the practice in his diocese. However, once a child has been allowed to receive they may receive in any parish in the CofE even if the diocese the child is currently in has not instituted this policy. I am surprised that this is a rather new phenomenon in the UK. Quite different from what I have experienced in Anglican Communion Churches here. It is towards the bottom of the page. Also, Roman Catholic children also receive First Communion before confirmation. If I remember correctly First Confession & Communion are usually received in about the 2nd grade of primary school so they are about 8-10 years old. Confirmation at least in the diocese that I am familiar with was usually performed in 7th grade so somewhere between 12-14 years of age.

Yes, but it doesn't take genius to realize that, if you're trying to bring up a child in a mixed marriage, you simply decline the option - which was, in any case, mainly instituted to make older children feel included. Confirmation in my community usually happens 13-21. It's an unusual bishop who'd confirm a child of 8 - perhaps you are thinking of Catholic Churches?
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #100 on: August 20, 2010, 01:59:13 PM »

And how would this mysteriously make him Anglican?

From our perspective, Holy Communion is an expression of a whole, full, and integral faith. If you take Communion at a church it means either that you believe what that church teaches or that you are a hypocrite.

Yes, but surely, an outside perspective is irrelevant here?

Pardon me? I don't understand what you are meaning.

I mean, you can't really start telling people which church they belong to based on your beliefs on communion, if their, and their church's beliefs, are different. It'd be like me saying I'd like to define anyone who supports capital punishment as a Communist - it's arbitrary.
Logged
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #101 on: August 20, 2010, 02:03:51 PM »

We are not talking merely about opinions but rather Truth. Two opposing views on right doctrine/ right practice cannot be reconciled one is right and one is wrong or they are both wrong. Orthodox do not consider many of the things found in these posts as being true or possible. I think Anglicanism is perhaps more accomandating because it has less requirements for belief and practice. I could be wrong but I can't seem to think of another way to expalin it at the moment. Let use a different example Anglicans profess the Nicene Creed with the Roman addition of the filoque. Now Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. Romans and I would imagine Anglicans as they adopted the changed Creed believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. How can anyone believe both? So one is right and the other is wrong or they are both wrong.
 
There are two major issues that would be fairly insurmountable explaining to children. (George wouldn't have this issue since he doesn't believe that children should be taught about faith at all). The first would be the orthodox view of salvation, the second would be the orthodox view of hell. Those two issues will always be an issue, and a very confusing one at that. You can not teach that "mommy believes this and daddy believes that" without confusing the heck out of the child. Either raise the child orthodox, or raise the child Anglican. Maybe you can make it "work" for your children. But the children will grow up quite confused and may eventually become quite angry and leave all faith altogether. The issues of communion are great as well. You can not have your children partake at one church one week and another a different week. Kids don't stay little forever Wink A child would not be allowed to partake of Anglican and Orthodox Eucharists concurrently. This would place the child in a position where they will have to choose between mom and dad at some point. They will have to decide that one or the other is correct. That is not a fair position to put a child in, it simply isn't healthy. You place the child into a situation of religious divorce whether you intend to or not.

I just don't understand this assumption that children cannot understand two views at once. It speaks poorly of the state of education in America, perhaps, because I've never encountered problems with it here.

I suppose you are right that, if we had a child whose mental abilities were very limited, it would be unfair to put him or her in this situation, and I think then we would simply take him or her to the Orthodox Church.
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #102 on: August 20, 2010, 02:04:39 PM »

Liz,

I think you may be in a unique situation, for the short term at least. Here in the US the Episcopal Church (Anglican Province) administers communion to all baptized Christians regardless of age. It seems that the CofE is moving in that direction or else they wouldn't have instituted this policy. The problem is that if you are trying to raise your children in the Orthodox Church and then take them to an Anglican parish and other kids are receiving, which probably will become more regular, how would they feel? Will they feel pressured? I think you misread my post as I did not say that Roman's Confirm at 8 rather between 12-14 years of age (if they are properly prepared).

Well, if it happens in the US!  Cheesy Wink

The CofE instituted that policy because it's practical: teenagers don't feel excluded, as there's a problem with teenagers being shy of/unkeen on the ceremony of confirmation, but wanting to participate. I can't see if ever becoming mandatory for a child (or anyone else) to take communion - that'd be a much bigger step in a different direction. So, I doubt any child would feel unusual not to take communion - if they felt awkward, it might of course be a sign that other things were amiss, which would I think be a more important problem (eg., child wanting to be confirmed).

Sorry about the misreading - there's a whole lot of posts here!  Smiley
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #103 on: August 20, 2010, 02:07:17 PM »

Yes, but we're not talking about asking a child to reconcile two opposing ideas of Truth, are we? Everyone (I believe even in the Orthodox Church), has to experience faith, not just accept teachings blindly, and I would have thought this is a good way of showing how different beliefs need to be evaluated against each other.

We are not talking merely about opinions but rather Truth. Two opposing views on right doctrine/ right practice cannot be reconciled one is right and one is wrong or they are both wrong. Orthodox do not consider many of the things found in these posts as being true or possible. I think Anglicanism is perhaps more accomandating because it has less requirements for belief and practice. I could be wrong but I can't seem to think of another way to expalin it at the moment. Let use a different example Anglicans profess the Nicene Creed with the Roman addition of the filoque. Now Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. Romans and I would imagine Anglicans as they adopted the changed Creed believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. How can anyone believe both? So one is right and the other is wrong or they are both wrong.
 
There are two major issues that would be fairly insurmountable explaining to children. (George wouldn't have this issue since he doesn't believe that children should be taught about faith at all). The first would be the orthodox view of salvation, the second would be the orthodox view of hell. Those two issues will always be an issue, and a very confusing one at that. You can not teach that "mommy believes this and daddy believes that" without confusing the heck out of the child. Either raise the child orthodox, or raise the child Anglican. Maybe you can make it "work" for your children. But the children will grow up quite confused and may eventually become quite angry and leave all faith altogether. The issues of communion are great as well. You can not have your children partake at one church one week and another a different week. Kids don't stay little forever Wink A child would not be allowed to partake of Anglican and Orthodox Eucharists concurrently. This would place the child in a position where they will have to choose between mom and dad at some point. They will have to decide that one or the other is correct. That is not a fair position to put a child in, it simply isn't healthy. You place the child into a situation of religious divorce whether you intend to or not.

I just don't understand this assumption that children cannot understand two views at once. It speaks poorly of the state of education in America, perhaps, because I've never encountered problems with it here.

I suppose you are right that, if we had a child whose mental abilities were very limited, it would be unfair to put him or her in this situation, and I think then we would simply take him or her to the Orthodox Church.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,517


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #104 on: August 20, 2010, 02:28:49 PM »

There are two major issues that would be fairly insurmountable explaining to children. (George wouldn't have this issue since he doesn't believe that children should be taught about faith at all). The first would be the orthodox view of salvation, the second would be the orthodox view of hell. Those two issues will always be an issue, and a very confusing one at that. You can not teach that "mommy believes this and daddy believes that" without confusing the heck out of the child. Either raise the child orthodox, or raise the child Anglican. Maybe you can make it "work" for your children. But the children will grow up quite confused and may eventually become quite angry and leave all faith altogether. The issues of communion are great as well. You can not have your children partake at one church one week and another a different week. Kids don't stay little forever Wink A child would not be allowed to partake of Anglican and Orthodox Eucharists concurrently. This would place the child in a position where they will have to choose between mom and dad at some point. They will have to decide that one or the other is correct. That is not a fair position to put a child in, it simply isn't healthy. You place the child into a situation of religious divorce whether you intend to or not.

I just don't understand this assumption that children cannot understand two views at once. It speaks poorly of the state of education in America, perhaps, because I've never encountered problems with it here.

I suppose you are right that, if we had a child whose mental abilities were very limited, it would be unfair to put him or her in this situation, and I think then we would simply take him or her to the Orthodox Church.

You keep speaking of younger children. Children grow up, quickly I might add. I have 4 children; 9, 5, 3 and 1. Maybe the Anglican church allows for the touchy feel-y "you believe that, I believe this, we are all happy" stuff, the Orthodox church does not. Truth is truth, and you can't correctly teach a child the Orthodox faith by saying "mom thinks this, dad thinks that." Kids won't put up with that for too long. Parenting has to be done with cohesion. If you don't raise children cooperatively you end up pitting parents against each other. Children ask very difficult questions fairly early as well. A 4 year old is not going to understand or accept that dad believes that hell is merely the state of rejecting the love of God and experiencing the consequences when mom thinks hell is punitive. A big issue to overcome would be free will. The Orthodox church recognizes our ability to choose to serve God, the Anglican church does not. How would you tell your 4 year old that? "Mom doesn't believe she can do anything good on her own. Dad believes that he must climb the ladder of salvation and choose to get back up again every time he falls." The Orthodox church recognizes that the Theotokos was without sin. Again, how would you explain this to a 4 year old? I have 4 children, and all of them started to ask these kind of questions by the time they were about 3. And answers like "Mom thinks that even the Theotokos sinned and Dad adheres to the church father's in saying she was without sin." Intercession of the Saints is a big issue as well. We seek the intercession of the saints in every single service, morning/evening prayers and in times of trouble. The Theotokos is our chief intercessor, her position as the mother of God (not the Mother of Christ) is an essential part of the Orthodox faith.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 02:32:41 PM by Quinault » Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,517


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #105 on: August 20, 2010, 02:39:04 PM »

How would you explain why your children can receive from birth in the Orthodox church and have to wait to be confirmed in the Anglican church? Either the Orthodox view (that no one can really "understand" the mystery of communion, so waiting until you have been thru catechism is a moot point) or the Anglican view is correct. Otherwise you will set the kids up to believe that one Eucharist is more/less holy than the other. Again the issue is that truth is truth, not subjective. Either the sky is blue and the grass green, or the sky is green and the grass is blue. It can't be both, it can't be open to interpretation. One is a truthful statement, one is not.

And seeing as you have no children, I don't think you really know how very VERY VERY literal children are. Children develop the ability to see things as less black and white as they grow older.  This isn't a US thing, this is a developmental fact. You have to specifically teach children a more relativistic mindset (and even then, it isn't certain that it will even work if you do).
« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 02:50:14 PM by Quinault » Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,517


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #106 on: August 20, 2010, 02:52:11 PM »

From a child development angle, it is actually better to raise a child in a single church up until they are about 9-10 and then introduce the second faith and allow them to try to compare/contrast the faiths for themselves. This would lead to the least amount of confusion and the greatest level of understand of both faiths. Otherwise a child is likely to mix up the two and not have a complete view of either. You seem to think that children that are younger are more elastic in terms of thinking, that is simply not the case. We develop elasticity of thought, it isn't ingrained. (except in language development, it is best to introduce multiple languages as young as possible).
« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 02:54:26 PM by Quinault » Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #107 on: August 20, 2010, 05:20:47 PM »

Thanks Quinault, I'll try to go through and reply (and thanks for getting off the 'let's discuss Anglican theology' angle again!).


You keep speaking of younger children. Children grow up, quickly I might add. I have 4 children; 9, 5, 3 and 1. Maybe the Anglican church allows for the touchy feel-y "you believe that, I believe this, we are all happy" stuff, the Orthodox church does not. Truth is truth, and you can't correctly teach a child the Orthodox faith by saying "mom thinks this, dad thinks that."

How can you be sure of that? And what about the (rather large number of) disagreements we seen on this forum between people, all of whom claim to be Orthodox. Don't Orthodox parents sometimes disagree too?

Quote
Kids won't put up with that for too long. Parenting has to be done with cohesion. If you don't raise children cooperatively you end up pitting parents against each other.

Well, this isn't how I was raised, and it's not considered very good practice here (so far as I gather from speaking to parents/reading the literature). Much better not to pretend mum and dad can preserve an artificially united front - after all, children need to learn that their parents are sometimes wrong, sometimes fallible, and sometimes, unable to answer all their questions.

Quote
Children ask very difficult questions fairly early as well. A 4 year old is not going to understand or accept that dad believes that hell is merely the state of rejecting the love of God and experiencing the consequences when mom thinks hell is punitive. A big issue to overcome would be free will. The Orthodox church recognizes our ability to choose to serve God, the Anglican church does not.

My vicar teaches that we choose to serve God, and I agree with him.

Quote
How would you tell your 4 year old that? "Mom doesn't believe she can do anything good on her own. Dad believes that he must climb the ladder of salvation and choose to get back up again every time he falls." The Orthodox church recognizes that the Theotokos was without sin. Again, how would you explain this to a 4 year old? I have 4 children, and all of them started to ask these kind of questions by the time they were about 3. And answers like "Mom thinks that even the Theotokos sinned and Dad adheres to the church father's in saying she was without sin."

What's wrong with that answer? It's not complicated!

Quote
Intercession of the Saints is a big issue as well. We seek the intercession of the saints in every single service, morning/evening prayers and in times of trouble. The Theotokos is our chief intercessor, her position as the mother of God (not the Mother of Christ) is an essential part of the Orthodox faith.

So? Do you think a child wouldn't understand that unless they'd been told that Mary was sinless? I can't see the connection myself.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,517


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #108 on: August 20, 2010, 05:26:21 PM »

There are issues that are open to interpretation with orthodoxy like aerial toll houses and the ability to choose to serve God after death and no longer be in "hell." But you can't have all issues of theology open to interpretation otherwise there is no framework to work upon.

You obviously haven't worked with a lot of children from a variety of ages. I don't think I can explain what I mean without you sharing at least a baseline knowledge of child development, which you obviously don't have. Otherwise you wouldn't think that cohesion in parenting was a bad thing. If there is anything about parenting/disciple that is a must it is consistency. Without consistency you are essentially throwing children to the wolves to raise themselves.

You also don't understand Orthodox theology at all. Learn what it is before you declare what aspects are disposable and what aspects are flexible. I suggest you read or go to some catechism for the Orthodox church so that you can know what Orthodox theology is. Not that you need become Orthodox, but you do need to know what Orthodox theology is. Obviously you have no clue. The Theotokos is either sinless, or she sinned, this is a MAJOR aspect of orthodox theology that sets it apart from both the Catholic and Protestant churches.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 05:29:37 PM by Quinault » Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #109 on: August 20, 2010, 05:28:15 PM »

How would you explain why your children can receive from birth in the Orthodox church and have to wait to be confirmed in the Anglican church?

Well, they are quite different things. In the Orthodox Church, you think Communion has a different purpose from what we think in the Anglican Church, so why should it be strange that different customs attend each one?

Quote
Either the Orthodox view (that no one can really "understand" the mystery of communion, so waiting until you have been thru catechism is a moot point) or the Anglican view is correct. Otherwise you will set the kids up to believe that one Eucharist is more/less holy than the other.

No, I don't think so. Why so?

Quote
Again the issue is that truth is truth, not subjective. Either the sky is blue and the grass green, or the sky is green and the grass is blue. It can't be both, it can't be open to interpretation. One is a truthful statement, one is not.

It's interesting that you pick that example! You see, my dad is colour-blind, so we grew up knowing that, to dad, lots of things looked red that were actually green, and vice-versa. We learned very early on that, actually even things we think are self-evident, are matters of perspective. You could learn the same lesson through languages - there's a very famous linguistic 'map' that shows how the word for 'blue' in one language corresponds with two different words (for 'bluish-green' and 'bluish-gray') in another, and so on. It's fascinating, but also says something important about the way we learn about truth. Children take to these things pretty naturally - in the linguistic experiment, bilingual children have no difficulty distinguishing medium from content. Truth is truth, yes - but our understanding of it varies.

Quote
And seeing as you have no children, I don't think you really know how very VERY VERY literal children are. Children develop the ability to see things as less black and white as they grow older.  This isn't a US thing, this is a developmental fact. You have to specifically teach children a more relativistic mindset (and even then, it isn't certain that it will even work if you do).

Maybe this is so! I'll live and learn - but, I don't think this is really to do with being literal or less literal. Plenty of adults are still very literal-minded, but it doesn't make them incapable of understanding different points of view.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,517


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #110 on: August 20, 2010, 05:31:46 PM »

But, were you taught to say that the color of the sky is subjective simply because your father was color blind? I doubt it. Either a color is called blue or it is not called blue. Color blindness effects a small portion of the population, but that doesn't mean we eliminate the names of colors to accommodate everyone.
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #111 on: August 20, 2010, 05:32:25 PM »

There are issues that are open to interpretation with orthodoxy like aerial toll houses and the ability to choose to serve God after death and no longer be in "hell." But you can't have all issues of theology open to interpretation otherwise there is no framework to work upon.

You obviously haven't worked with a lot of children from a variety of ages. I don't think I can explain what I mean without you sharing at least a baseline knowledge of child development, which you obviously don't have. Otherwise you wouldn't think that cohesion in parenting was a bad thing. If there is anything about parenting/disciple that is a must it is consistency. Without consistency you are essentially throwing children to the wolves to raise themselves.

No, I've not worked with children, so I am hoping to learn. However, I do study child development as part of my academic work (a very poor second to being a mum, no doubt!). There is a big difference between consistency - eg., being firm about what the 'house rules' are - and cohesion. I guess I'm thinking a lot about young children because most of my reading has been looking at language development and how it affects comprehension (bilingualism and so on), but I do know that if a child is very, very literal and unable to adapt from this, it is a warning sign. Not a good thing at all.
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #112 on: August 20, 2010, 05:34:20 PM »

But, were you taught to say that the color of the sky is subjective simply because your father was color blind? I doubt it. Either a color is called blue or it is not called blue.

No, this is simply wrong. It is well understood that things like names and perceptions of colours (amongst other, apparently experientially verifiable facts), differ from language to language and population to population.

Quote
Color blindness effects a small portion of the population, but that doesn't mean we eliminate the names of colors to accommodate everyone.

No - precisely. We keep using the same structures of language that more-or-less work, just as one does when explaining about faith to a child.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,517


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #113 on: August 20, 2010, 05:35:50 PM »

From an Orthodox perspective it is simply wrong to say that the saints don't intercede and that the Theotokos sinned.
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #114 on: August 20, 2010, 05:39:34 PM »

From an Orthodox perspective it is simply wrong to say that the saints don't intercede and that the Theotokos sinned.

Yes. It's perfectly acceptable from my point of view, to say this may be true. But (as with the colour of the sky), we can all say what we see, but we can never see what someone else does. So, perhaps the saints do intercede. Perhaps, when something good happens to you, that is proof. Perhaps not.

Why do you think a child wouldn't understand that? I understood relative belief systems before I was out of playschool, and I wasn't an especially precocious child.
Logged
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #115 on: August 20, 2010, 05:40:01 PM »

I am glad you brought up house rules. It is obvious that our faiths are very different which maybe why we are not having a meeting of the minds. What would happen if you told your child they had to go to bed at 9PM and your husband said they could go to bed when they wanted... who would the child follow?

There are issues that are open to interpretation with orthodoxy like aerial toll houses and the ability to choose to serve God after death and no longer be in "hell." But you can't have all issues of theology open to interpretation otherwise there is no framework to work upon.

You obviously haven't worked with a lot of children from a variety of ages. I don't think I can explain what I mean without you sharing at least a baseline knowledge of child development, which you obviously don't have. Otherwise you wouldn't think that cohesion in parenting was a bad thing. If there is anything about parenting/disciple that is a must it is consistency. Without consistency you are essentially throwing children to the wolves to raise themselves.

No, I've not worked with children, so I am hoping to learn. However, I do study child development as part of my academic work (a very poor second to being a mum, no doubt!). There is a big difference between consistency - eg., being firm about what the 'house rules' are - and cohesion. I guess I'm thinking a lot about young children because most of my reading has been looking at language development and how it affects comprehension (bilingualism and so on), but I do know that if a child is very, very literal and unable to adapt from this, it is a warning sign. Not a good thing at all.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,517


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #116 on: August 20, 2010, 05:40:09 PM »

Understanding different perspectives requires abstract thought. Children must develop the ability to think abstractly by thinking literally first.
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #117 on: August 20, 2010, 05:43:35 PM »

I am glad you brought up house rules. It is obvious that our faiths are very different which maybe why we are not having a meeting of the minds. What would happen if you told your child they had to go to bed at 9PM and your husband said they could go to bed when they wanted... who would the child follow?

Well, I hope we'd agree beforehand on a bedtime - but if not, I think it would have to be whoever said it first - it's only fair to a child to go with the first response to a question, and also, you shouldn't encourage children to go asking mum something when dad's already answered, or vice-versa.

Are you saying you think they should automatically obey my husband before me?
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #118 on: August 20, 2010, 05:45:39 PM »

Understanding different perspectives requires abstract thought. Children must develop the ability to think abstractly by thinking literally first.

Ah, but understanding different perspectives isn't the first thing you do ... first you simply acknowledge that they are there. I didn't understand for a while why dad said something was red when I saw it was green, but he did, and it was just one of the peculiarities of the world. If you think about it, so many things seem arbitrary to a child, they're less likely to be bothered than you may think.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,517


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #119 on: August 20, 2010, 05:48:32 PM »

^Very, very, very VERY bad idea. If you raise a child that way you will cause extreme marital strife. Children will just ask the more permissive parent first. This will cause the children to essentially be single parented. The stricter parent will be left out of all parenting decisions and labeled the "bad guy."
Logged
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #120 on: August 20, 2010, 05:49:06 PM »

No I am not saying they should obey the husband what I am saying is that it is far more important to have agreement on faith than something as trivial as bedtime. Also, I would imagine that the child would follow whoever gave them more of what they want and then let the parents fight it out.
I am glad you brought up house rules. It is obvious that our faiths are very different which maybe why we are not having a meeting of the minds. What would happen if you told your child they had to go to bed at 9PM and your husband said they could go to bed when they wanted... who would the child follow?

Well, I hope we'd agree beforehand on a bedtime - but if not, I think it would have to be whoever said it first - it's only fair to a child to go with the first response to a question, and also, you shouldn't encourage children to go asking mum something when dad's already answered, or vice-versa.

Are you saying you think they should automatically obey my husband before me?
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,517


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #121 on: August 20, 2010, 05:53:02 PM »

Understanding different perspectives requires abstract thought. Children must develop the ability to think abstractly by thinking literally first.

Ah, but understanding different perspectives isn't the first thing you do ... first you simply acknowledge that they are there. I didn't understand for a while why dad said something was red when I saw it was green, but he did, and it was just one of the peculiarities of the world. If you think about it, so many things seem arbitrary to a child, they're less likely to be bothered than you may think.

How long have you worked on child development? I have worked in this field as either a mother or a teacher for over a decade and a half. Color theory is an example of a concrete concept. You were not taught that your father was right when he called a color red. You were taught that he had a condition that caused his eyes to see the color as red. IF you took a preschool class, and were asked to name a block of color and you had a choice between labeling the green block red, or labeling it green, you labeled the green block green. The way your father saw the color was and is fundamentally wrong as an answer when answering the question. Faith is a primarily concrete concept. When I taught my children about the concept of God the first time, I didn't teach them about EVERY God and view on God at once. Children need succinct explanations when they are young and then you can expound on them as they grow older.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 05:56:23 PM by Quinault » Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #122 on: August 20, 2010, 05:56:08 PM »

^Very, very, very VERY bad idea. If you raise a child that way you will cause extreme marital strife. Children will just ask the more permissive parent first. This will cause the children to essentially be single parented. The stricter parent will be left out of all parenting decisions and labeled the "bad guy."

Oh come on Quinault, that is just silly now. You seem to think couples exist as if with a great yawning chasm between them, that can only be hesitantly covered over. Unless something is already very wrong in a relationship, why would they be like that?
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,517


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #123 on: August 20, 2010, 05:59:48 PM »

Because parenting can either ring a couple together or tear them apart. Issues that are small in a marriage before children will become a big issue as parents. We parent based upon a world view and from the perspective of our faith. If you believe that we are incapable of doing anything good you will parent a child to correct the sin out of them. If you parent from the perspective that children are inherently good and learn to sin you will parent in another way. And if each of your parents parent from a different perspective you are in a parental method divorce situation. The rules with Dad are different then the rules with mom. Then the child will decide which method they prefer and only seek the parenting of the parent they "like" more. One parent is parenting to teach and the other is teaching to correct. They may seem like the same concept, but they are not.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 06:01:28 PM by Quinault » Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #124 on: August 20, 2010, 06:00:15 PM »

Understanding different perspectives requires abstract thought. Children must develop the ability to think abstractly by thinking literally first.

Ah, but understanding different perspectives isn't the first thing you do ... first you simply acknowledge that they are there. I didn't understand for a while why dad said something was red when I saw it was green, but he did, and it was just one of the peculiarities of the world. If you think about it, so many things seem arbitrary to a child, they're less likely to be bothered than you may think.

How long have you worked on child development? I have worked in this field as either a mother or a teacher for over a decade and a half. Color theory is an example of a concrete concept. You were not taught that your father was right when he called a color red. You were taught that he had a condition that caused his eyes to see the color as red. IF you took a preschool class, and were asked to name a block of color and you had a choice between labeling the green block red, or labeling it green, you labeled the green block green. The way your father saw the color was and is fundamentally wrong as an answer when answering the question.


Oh, I see - I thought you'd researched child development yourself.

What I've looked at is the research into cognitive/linguistic theory, which is rather different from the (much more useful, of course!) practical stuff about how you teach a child his colours. The point is, children are equipped to understand far more, and far more subtly, than you're giving them credit for.

A child knows that, when he's asked, 'what colour is this?', he should give the appropriate answer. But, it's been shown that children also learn about perspectives, and not as late on as you think. If you have a child of 5 or so, who can't comprehend someone else's perspective affects their perception of truth, you have a problem. In the UK, you'd usually be referred for special check-ups of the child's development (it being one of the common and observable signs of autism). These things are really quite important, and if you try to blank them out of a child's development, you will damage that child.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,517


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #125 on: August 20, 2010, 06:07:24 PM »

No, you aren't getting what I mean. I have studied child development a great deal both professional and as a parent. I have at least 2 children with Sensory Processing Disorder. Children can be willfully deceptive at an early age. But a child does not know what the abstract concept of a "lie" is until they are older. My 3 year old can steal a cookie and not tell the truth when asked if he stole it. That isn't a lie, that is just a lack of understanding truth from non-truth.

A child can be taught that hitting another child is wrong from several different perspectives. All of it comes down to the basic premise as to whether or not the abstract concept of hurting someone else is "wrong" or subjective. If it is subjective then you teach a child that they are hurting someone else and leave it up to them to decide if hurting someone else is wrong/right justifiable. If you teach a child that hurting someone else is wrong, you must teach them why hurting someone else is wrong.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 06:08:22 PM by Quinault » Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #126 on: August 20, 2010, 06:08:44 PM »

Because parenting can either ring a couple together or tear them apart. Issues that are small in a marriage before children will become a big issue as parents.

That, I am sure is true!

Quote
We parent based upon a world view and from the perspective of our faith. If you believe that we are incapable of doing anything good you will parent a child to correct the sin out of them. If you parent from the perspective that children are inherently good and learn to sin you will parent in another way. And if each of your parents parent from a different perspective you are in a parental method divorce situation. The rules with Dad are different then the rules with mom. Then the child will decide which method they prefer and only seek the parenting of the parent they "like" more. One parent is parenting to teach and the other is teaching to correct. They may seem like the same concept, but they are not.


For what it's worth, my husband and I don't disagree about whether people are inherently good, or inherently sinful. But I don't think it's usual to let a child choose which parent it will always go to. It'll be randomized by things like, who's home when, who's in the room, which parent does what with which child, etc. etc. Indeed, lots of things will vary depending on mood - I know my mum would sometimes be strict because she was feeling cross, and she won't be the only parent like that!
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,517


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #127 on: August 20, 2010, 06:12:00 PM »

I have seen how teaching abstract ideas of truth can warp a child. And when it comes to faith you have to wait to make a concept abstract until you can build upon a concrete view. If there is not a base of absolutes to build upon a child will not be capable of understanding anything. You will essentially be teaching a child that they only rule there is is that there are no rules, which a child simply can not understand. A rule that there are no rules is a false dichotomy.
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #128 on: August 20, 2010, 06:19:36 PM »

No, you aren't getting what I mean. I have studied child development a great deal both professional and as a parent. I have at least 2 children with Sensory Processing Disorder. Children can be willfully deceptive at an early age. But a child does not know what the abstract concept of a "lie" is until they are older. My 3 year old can steal a cookie and not tell the truth when asked if he stole it. That isn't a lie, that is just a lack of understanding truth from non-truth.
Quote

Well, I thought 3-4 was roughly when you start to watch out and see if children are capable of lying, pretend play, understanding the 'naughty Teddy' type experiment, and so on. It's a pretty important stage in development, not something you should be blase about if a child can't do it.

Quote
A child can be taught that hitting another child is wrong from several different perspectives. All of it comes down to the basic premise as to whether or not the abstract concept of hurting someone else is "wrong" or subjective. If it is subjective then you teach a child that they are hurting someone else and leave it up to them to decide if hurting someone else is wrong/right justifiable. If you teach a child that hurting someone else is wrong, you must teach them why hurting someone else is wrong.

Yes, of course. But I don't see why that would be a problem in a Christian marriage - we all know that hurting someone else is wrong, for a range of reasons from the simple ('how would you feel if Timmy did that to you') to the more complicated ('Timmy is just as important as you'). Now, of course, the pain probably is a bit subjective, but I don't see that as a great excuse for a child to learn!
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,517


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #129 on: August 20, 2010, 06:20:15 PM »

Let's put it this way; the set of letters we use in the English alphabet are used in plenty of other languages. The sounds that a certain letter makes can vary from language to language slightly or sound completely different. When you teach your child the alphabet, you don't start by teaching them all the various sounds that letter makes in every language. You teach that child that a letter makes a specific sound in a specific language. Visually the letters may be the same, but the sound is different. Teaching a language by hearing bypasses this issue. But you don't teach a child the names/sounds of a letter concurrently when they differ unless you introduce context. You can't introduce context before a child is capable of reading. So you teach the English alphabet and the other alphabet separately. You don't say the alphabets altogether at once. The "a" says ... but in this language it says.....and so on and so forth.
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #130 on: August 20, 2010, 06:22:36 PM »

I have seen how teaching abstract ideas of truth can warp a child. And when it comes to faith you have to wait to make a concept abstract until you can build upon a concrete view. If there is not a base of absolutes to build upon a child will not be capable of understanding anything. You will essentially be teaching a child that they only rule there is is that there are no rules, which a child simply can not understand. A rule that there are no rules is a false dichotomy.

Interestingly, my mother-in-law, who catechizes the children in church, thinks this is completely wrong!  Wink

But she's just one person, so only one view.

What concerns me is, I am sure if you teach children like that, they will learn about Christianity by rote. But they will have no faith.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,517


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #131 on: August 20, 2010, 06:23:23 PM »

Children can not reliably discern and differentiate a "lie" from "the truth" until they are about 5-8. They can discern "right and wrong," but not the truth from a lie. A lie is the willful act of with holding or clouding the truth. Whereas something wrong is incorrect, and something true is correct.
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #132 on: August 20, 2010, 06:24:27 PM »

Let's put it this way; the set of letters we use in the English alphabet are used in plenty of other languages. The sounds that a certain letter makes can vary from language to language slightly or sound completely different. When you teach your child the alphabet, you don't start by teaching them all the various sounds that letter makes in every language. You teach that child that a letter makes a specific sound in a specific language. Visually the letters may be the same, but the sound is different. Teaching a language by hearing bypasses this issue. But you don't teach a child the names/sounds of a letter concurrently when they differ unless you introduce context. You can't introduce context before a child is capable of reading. So you teach the English alphabet and the other alphabet separately. You don't say the alphabets altogether at once. The "a" says ... but in this language it says.....and so on and so forth.

Sorry Quinault, I really appreciate you trying this analogy because I am fascinated by language, but I'm not getting it. Could you explain a bit more clearly what you think this means for teaching a child about faith?
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #133 on: August 20, 2010, 06:25:28 PM »

Children can not reliably discern and differentiate a "lie" from "the truth" until they are about 5-8. They can discern "right and wrong," but not the truth from a lie. A lie is the willful act of with holding or clouding the truth. Whereas something wrong is incorrect, and something true is correct.

Really? In this country, the 'silly Teddy' test is still done on children in reception (ie. 4). It's considered a concern if they can't do it.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,517


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #134 on: August 20, 2010, 06:28:53 PM »

The teddy test is not a test about lie versus truth. That test determines the ability to discern correct versus incorrect.



I have to get to the Farmers Market before it closes, I hope someone else can take over and explain more. If not, I can write more tomorrow.
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #135 on: August 20, 2010, 06:34:15 PM »

The teddy test is not a test about lie versus truth. That test determines the ability to discern correct versus incorrect.

We might be talking about a different test? The one I'm talking about is testing whether or not a child knows that someone else won't know and see exactly what he knows and sees. It's a test of understanding of subjectivity.

Quote
I have to get to the Farmers Market before it closes, I hope someone else can take over and explain more. If not, I can write more tomorrow.

Hope you enjoy the Farmers' Market then!
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,300



« Reply #136 on: August 23, 2010, 10:33:09 AM »

Quote
Much better not to pretend mum and dad can preserve an artificially united front

Actually, it's much better if mom and dad have an actual united front.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,666



« Reply #137 on: August 23, 2010, 10:57:16 AM »

If I did have children, they could not 'reject' communion, as they would be children!

We serve Communion to children from as young as possible in the East.

So what's the problem then?

Your children won't be served.

Btw, the two pre-teens being baptized yesterday were officially received as catechumen, with the blowing ceremony and everything.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,666



« Reply #138 on: August 23, 2010, 10:59:37 AM »

There are two major issues that would be fairly insurmountable explaining to children. (George wouldn't have this issue since he doesn't believe that children should be taught about faith at all). The first would be the orthodox view of salvation, the second would be the orthodox view of hell. Those two issues will always be an issue, and a very confusing one at that. You can not teach that "mommy believes this and daddy believes that" without confusing the heck out of the child. Either raise the child orthodox, or raise the child Anglican. Maybe you can make it "work" for your children. But the children will grow up quite confused and may eventually become quite angry and leave all faith altogether. The issues of communion are great as well. You can not have your children partake at one church one week and another a different week. Kids don't stay little forever Wink A child would not be allowed to partake of Anglican and Orthodox Eucharists concurrently. This would place the child in a position where they will have to choose between mom and dad at some point. They will have to decide that one or the other is correct. That is not a fair position to put a child in, it simply isn't healthy. You place the child into a situation of religious divorce whether you intend to or not.

I just don't understand this assumption that children cannot understand two views at once. It speaks poorly of the state of education in America, perhaps, because I've never encountered problems with it here.

They can understand two views at once. They just can't, as neither can adults (despite what the CoE and the American educational establishment preach), hold them at once.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #139 on: August 23, 2010, 11:03:59 AM »

Quote
Much better not to pretend mum and dad can preserve an artificially united front

Actually, it's much better if mom and dad have an actual united front.

I don't think any couple agrees on everything. The 50s-style 'mummy and daddy are always right' hasn't got the greatest track record, and I'm quite happy to let it fall by the wayside.
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #140 on: August 23, 2010, 11:06:07 AM »

If I did have children, they could not 'reject' communion, as they would be children!

We serve Communion to children from as young as possible in the East.

So what's the problem then?

Your children won't be served.

Btw, the two pre-teens being baptized yesterday were officially received as catechumen, with the blowing ceremony and everything.

That's not what the priest says. They will attend Communion with everyone else in the Orthodox Church, no problem with it.

I think if a pre-teen feels strongly that he or she wants to be a catechumen, you have to respect that, btw.
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #141 on: August 23, 2010, 11:06:56 AM »

There are two major issues that would be fairly insurmountable explaining to children. (George wouldn't have this issue since he doesn't believe that children should be taught about faith at all). The first would be the orthodox view of salvation, the second would be the orthodox view of hell. Those two issues will always be an issue, and a very confusing one at that. You can not teach that "mommy believes this and daddy believes that" without confusing the heck out of the child. Either raise the child orthodox, or raise the child Anglican. Maybe you can make it "work" for your children. But the children will grow up quite confused and may eventually become quite angry and leave all faith altogether. The issues of communion are great as well. You can not have your children partake at one church one week and another a different week. Kids don't stay little forever Wink A child would not be allowed to partake of Anglican and Orthodox Eucharists concurrently. This would place the child in a position where they will have to choose between mom and dad at some point. They will have to decide that one or the other is correct. That is not a fair position to put a child in, it simply isn't healthy. You place the child into a situation of religious divorce whether you intend to or not.

I just don't understand this assumption that children cannot understand two views at once. It speaks poorly of the state of education in America, perhaps, because I've never encountered problems with it here.

They can understand two views at once. They just can't, as neither can adults (despite what the CoE and the American educational establishment preach), hold them at once.

Agreed. Actually, I don't think the CofE has ever suggested someone can hold two views at once (citation?).
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,300



« Reply #142 on: August 23, 2010, 11:26:14 AM »

Quote
Much better not to pretend mum and dad can preserve an artificially united front

Actually, it's much better if mom and dad have an actual united front.

I don't think any couple agrees on everything. The 50s-style 'mummy and daddy are always right' hasn't got the greatest track record, and I'm quite happy to let it fall by the wayside.

No, people disagree on many issues, such as to whether peanut butter should be kept in the refrigerator.

We're not talking about trivial things, and I suspect that you know that.
We're talking about substantive differences.

But since you don't believe children should have the assurance that their parents will make good and right decisions for them, you will, along with their freedom to decide which if any religion they will be brought up in, let your children decide whether or not they will go to the doctor, or the dentist or get immunized or attend school?

Really? I'm astonished to hear that. As a newly-wed, you much prefer the current situation of high divorce rates, "shacking up," and single-parent families?
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,666



« Reply #143 on: August 23, 2010, 11:36:42 AM »

There are two major issues that would be fairly insurmountable explaining to children. (George wouldn't have this issue since he doesn't believe that children should be taught about faith at all). The first would be the orthodox view of salvation, the second would be the orthodox view of hell. Those two issues will always be an issue, and a very confusing one at that. You can not teach that "mommy believes this and daddy believes that" without confusing the heck out of the child. Either raise the child orthodox, or raise the child Anglican. Maybe you can make it "work" for your children. But the children will grow up quite confused and may eventually become quite angry and leave all faith altogether. The issues of communion are great as well. You can not have your children partake at one church one week and another a different week. Kids don't stay little forever Wink A child would not be allowed to partake of Anglican and Orthodox Eucharists concurrently. This would place the child in a position where they will have to choose between mom and dad at some point. They will have to decide that one or the other is correct. That is not a fair position to put a child in, it simply isn't healthy. You place the child into a situation of religious divorce whether you intend to or not.
If they partake of Eucharists concurrently, then they have taken mommy's side by default.  I would say that allowing the children to "chose" is also conceding the Protestant point, although there there is a history of Orthodox postponing baptism (though not in the final analysis IMHO any better reason).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,666



« Reply #144 on: August 23, 2010, 11:41:18 AM »

Quote
Much better not to pretend mum and dad can preserve an artificially united front

Actually, it's much better if mom and dad have an actual united front.

I don't think any couple agrees on everything. The 50s-style 'mummy and daddy are always right' hasn't got the greatest track record, and I'm quite happy to let it fall by the wayside.

Hmmm.  The 50s mommy and daddy raised the generation of the 60's and 70's.  So they gave them a background of stable family life which the children turned into the domestic chaos we enjoy today. Though Dr. Spock coming out in 1947 did his part, more so his "disciples."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,666



« Reply #145 on: August 23, 2010, 11:46:36 AM »

If I did have children, they could not 'reject' communion, as they would be children!

We serve Communion to children from as young as possible in the East.

So what's the problem then?

Your children won't be served.

Btw, the two pre-teens being baptized yesterday were officially received as catechumen, with the blowing ceremony and everything.

That's not what the priest says. They will attend Communion with everyone else in the Orthodox Church, no problem with it.

Not if they aren't baptised Orthodox and remain so (i.e. no communion from the Anglicans) they won't. 

That's not, btw, an issue between you and the priest (is this the same one behind the last minute wedding problems?). It then becomes an issue between the priest and the rest of the Church.

Quote
I think if a pre-teen feels strongly that he or she wants to be a catechumen, you have to respect that, btw.

Depends on what you mean by "respect."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #146 on: August 23, 2010, 11:55:43 AM »

Quote
Much better not to pretend mum and dad can preserve an artificially united front

Actually, it's much better if mom and dad have an actual united front.

I don't think any couple agrees on everything. The 50s-style 'mummy and daddy are always right' hasn't got the greatest track record, and I'm quite happy to let it fall by the wayside.

No, people disagree on many issues, such as to whether peanut butter should be kept in the refrigerator.

We're not talking about trivial things, and I suspect that you know that.
We're talking about substantive differences.

Yes, you're right that big differences are more important than small ones - but actually, I think most people do have at least one area of significant disagreement, even if it doesn't emerge for quite a while. For example, lots of my friends are just getting to the age when their children need to go to school, and there are lots of state/private disagreements breaking out, which are really difficult to resolve (and, obviously, have far-reaching implications). As far as I know, none of these couples particularly foresaw disagreement, either (I hear a lot of disbelief at 'the absurd things s/he believes!')

Quote
But since you don't believe children should have the assurance that their parents will make good and right decisions for them, you will, along with their freedom to decide which if any religion they will be brought up in, let your children decide whether or not they will go to the doctor, or the dentist or get immunized or attend school?

I don't understand the first part of what you say above - why do you think I believe that?

Quote
Really? I'm astonished to hear that. As a newly-wed, you much prefer the current situation of high divorce rates, "shacking up," and single-parent families?

They are not 'either/or' alternatives, you know. I'd like to think we can progress from a rigid, 50s-style parenting model, and also avoid the other pitfalls. But perhaps I'm overly idealistic.
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,300



« Reply #147 on: August 23, 2010, 12:32:37 PM »

Yes, you're right that big differences are more important than small ones - but actually, I think most people do have at least one area of significant disagreement, even if it doesn't emerge for quite a while. For example, lots of my friends are just getting to the age when their children need to go to school, and there are lots of state/private disagreements breaking out, which are really difficult to resolve (and, obviously, have far-reaching implications). As far as I know, none of these couples particularly foresaw disagreement, either (I hear a lot of disbelief at 'the absurd things s/he believes!')

Ok, now imagine these disagreements breaking out, which are really difficult to resolve and have far-reaching implications, about religion, in addition to whatever undiscovered disagreements that exist.  And that your children are privy to the remarks about the "absurd things" each of you believes about something as important as God, morality, values, beliefs and faith.
Do you think that makes for a serene and happy home life for the children? From personal experience, even with parents who loved each other devotedly, I can tell you that it doesn't.

Quote
I don't understand the first part of what you say above - why do you think I believe that?
Then you don't believe that children should decide for themselves what religion they will be brought up in? Then who will be doing the deciding?

Quote
They are not 'either/or' alternatives, you know. I'd like to think we can progress from a rigid, 50s-style parenting model, and also avoid the other pitfalls. But perhaps I'm overly idealistic.
It hasn't worked at all well so far, so I think that you are overly idealistic.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,076


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #148 on: August 23, 2010, 12:33:31 PM »

Liz,

I haven't read through the thread, but I thought I'd pass along a comment that has been oft-repeated in Clergy circles, both Orthodox and non-Orthodox: "If you try to raise them in both faiths, they will choose neither."  I've only seen this a few times myself; but clergy more experienced than I have seen it numerous times, and while it does not happen 100% of the time, it seems to occur pretty close to that.  Here's why I think it happens:

Faith, especially Christian Faith, is focused around encountering Truth in places where it might not be able to be empirically measured.  For us Christians, Anglican and Orthodox alike, the Truth is a person and His Body, the Church, which does His work in the world.  As an adult, it is easy to compartmentalize life while still looking at the Church as the repository of Truth in the world - as someone raised Orthodox, it is possible for me to look at, say, some Eastern mystical religion which says that human beings should not be killed and say, "well they have a grain of the truth there."  

However, when children are raised up in two faith traditions, the first underlying message that comes across is that neither has the Truth (which is why they can't go just to one instead of both).  This prevents the strong bond between person and Faith that occurs when most of us are brought up in a 1-faith household (regardless of the parents' individual affiliations); thus, faith (& religion) will be seen more like a club than a way of life.

This is only a brief summary of my thoughts on the matter, and only stated from a broad, psychological-type perspective (not from the perspective as an Orthodox priest/aspiring theologian).  However, regardless of what I've stated above, I pray that the Holy Spirit guide you to what is right and good for your (and your husband's) salvation and the salvation of any family you decide to raise.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #149 on: August 23, 2010, 12:49:43 PM »

Yes, you're right that big differences are more important than small ones - but actually, I think most people do have at least one area of significant disagreement, even if it doesn't emerge for quite a while. For example, lots of my friends are just getting to the age when their children need to go to school, and there are lots of state/private disagreements breaking out, which are really difficult to resolve (and, obviously, have far-reaching implications). As far as I know, none of these couples particularly foresaw disagreement, either (I hear a lot of disbelief at 'the absurd things s/he believes!')

Ok, now imagine these disagreements breaking out, which are really difficult to resolve and have far-reaching implications, about religion, in addition to whatever undiscovered disagreements that exist.  And that your children are privy to the remarks about the "absurd things" each of you believes about something as important as God, morality, values, beliefs and faith.
Do you think that makes for a serene and happy home life for the children? From personal experience, even with parents who loved each other devotedly, I can tell you that it doesn't.

Katherine, I'm saying I think people disagree, it's natural. I don't think it's even unhealthy. Btw, I don't think my friends argue in front of their children (nor, in fact, do I think they refer to 'absurd things' to each other - they're blowing off steam to me).

Quote
Quote
I don't understand the first part of what you say above - why do you think I believe that?
Then you don't believe that children should decide for themselves what religion they will be brought up in? Then who will be doing the deciding?

I'm sorry, I don't follow. I said I didn't understand why you thought I believed those things - why is this necessarily to do with children 'deciding' to follow a religion? In my experience, one doesn't 'decide' such a thing, the way you might decide to have beef for dinner - if you have faith, you have faith. Wishing it away won't make it go, and wishing for it may not be  enough to bring it back.

Quote
Quote
They are not 'either/or' alternatives, you know. I'd like to think we can progress from a rigid, 50s-style parenting model, and also avoid the other pitfalls. But perhaps I'm overly idealistic.
It hasn't worked at all well so far, so I think that you are overly idealistic.
[/quote]

Excuse me? What evidence do you have for saying my marriage isn't working well?!

I will say, one thing that has brought us into close agreement with each other is reading threads like these and finding the blueprint for exactly how *not* to parent or relate to each other!
« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 12:50:49 PM by Liz » Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,300



« Reply #150 on: August 23, 2010, 01:35:53 PM »

Yes, you're right that big differences are more important than small ones - but actually, I think most people do have at least one area of significant disagreement, even if it doesn't emerge for quite a while. For example, lots of my friends are just getting to the age when their children need to go to school, and there are lots of state/private disagreements breaking out, which are really difficult to resolve (and, obviously, have far-reaching implications). As far as I know, none of these couples particularly foresaw disagreement, either (I hear a lot of disbelief at 'the absurd things s/he believes!')

Ok, now imagine these disagreements breaking out, which are really difficult to resolve and have far-reaching implications, about religion, in addition to whatever undiscovered disagreements that exist.  And that your children are privy to the remarks about the "absurd things" each of you believes about something as important as God, morality, values, beliefs and faith.
Do you think that makes for a serene and happy home life for the children? From personal experience, even with parents who loved each other devotedly, I can tell you that it doesn't.

Katherine, I'm saying I think people disagree, it's natural. I don't think it's even unhealthy. Btw, I don't think my friends argue in front of their children (nor, in fact, do I think they refer to 'absurd things' to each other - they're blowing off steam to me).
Yes, people disagree, as I said before, but agreement on substantive issues, especially the big ones of morality, values and beliefs is important. Unless morality, values and beliefs are situational - that is, there is no mutual agreement, only whatever one person wants to do. And you don't know that your friends don't refer to abusrd things - you are inferring. They very well may do so.
If they do, do you think it would be good for the children? From your statement, I infer that you don't think it is a good thing.

Quote
I don't understand the first part of what you say above - why do you think I believe that?
Then you don't believe that children should decide for themselves what religion they will be brought up in? Then who will be doing the deciding?

Quote
I'm sorry, I don't follow. I said I didn't understand why you thought I believed those things - why is this necessarily to do with children 'deciding' to follow a religion? In my experience, one doesn't 'decide' such a thing, the way you might decide to have beef for dinner - if you have faith, you have faith.
So how does one "get" faith? How does one even know that faith is something that one would like to know about or decide about, that faith exists and is a good thing - unless one is exposed to it.
Which will that be, for your children? Or will you leave it up to them? (you certainly don't have to answer this - it's very personal)
You, I hope, won't let them decide for themselves whether or not they will be immunized or get their teeth seen to or go to the doctor or get an education.
These are important, not optional, things - which the parents should take care of, just like ensuring that their children are brought up in a religion.
Quote
Excuse me? What evidence do you have for saying my marriage isn't working well?!
What evidence do you have that I was referring to your marriage? I was actually referring to the sorry state of society today - as I mentioned before and you responded to - we have the evidence before us.

Quote
I will say, one thing that has brought us into close agreement with each other is reading threads like these and finding the blueprint for exactly how *not* to parent or relate to each other!
Yes, why listen to people who already have children or who have been married for many years? Or who have actually grown up in a inter (or no) faith household?
How could they possibly possess insights that you lack?
« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 01:38:06 PM by katherineofdixie » Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #151 on: August 31, 2010, 04:36:12 PM »

I had to take a little while to respond to this.

Katherine, you chose to give me unsolicited advice, in the middle of a thread that someone else had started. You can hardly blame me for feeling that this is inappropriate. What upsets me more is that, although I have sought advice from my priest, you - a laywoman - have decided that your personal feelings are worthy of more consideration than the advice of our priest.

It is very difficult for me to understand how the Orthodox Church can claim to be in any way unified, when lay members take issue with the decisions of priests and bishops (yes, of course, we checked with the bishop that he approved the marriage).

I have said, earlier in this thread, that it did not seem relevant to the original topic to discuss whether or not Anglicanism is correct (since Minasomalian, who started the thread, is not Anglican and is not dating an Anglican woman). The responses on this thread seem, to me, to display a fair amount of ignorance. That is understandable, since this is an Orthodox forum, but I don't see why there is this enthusiasm to continue spreading incorrect ideas. If you look at the continuation of the thread that split from this one, sensible questions on specific issues were asked - why would that have been so difficult for you?

You seem to think that moral rectitude is a concept unique to Orthodox Christians, despite the copious theological and anecdotal evidence to the contrary. If you genuinely believe (as you argue) that Orthodox Christians are automatically morally superior, perhaps you would be more comfortable as a member of one of the evangelical 'churches'?

I hope you understand what I am trying to say. I simply cannot understand why the you think that the Orthodox Church is best served by having its most ignorant, lay members attempting to argue with ordained clergy.







Yes, you're right that big differences are more important than small ones - but actually, I think most people do have at least one area of significant disagreement, even if it doesn't emerge for quite a while. For example, lots of my friends are just getting to the age when their children need to go to school, and there are lots of state/private disagreements breaking out, which are really difficult to resolve (and, obviously, have far-reaching implications). As far as I know, none of these couples particularly foresaw disagreement, either (I hear a lot of disbelief at 'the absurd things s/he believes!')

Ok, now imagine these disagreements breaking out, which are really difficult to resolve and have far-reaching implications, about religion, in addition to whatever undiscovered disagreements that exist.  And that your children are privy to the remarks about the "absurd things" each of you believes about something as important as God, morality, values, beliefs and faith.
Do you think that makes for a serene and happy home life for the children? From personal experience, even with parents who loved each other devotedly, I can tell you that it doesn't.

Katherine, I'm saying I think people disagree, it's natural. I don't think it's even unhealthy. Btw, I don't think my friends argue in front of their children (nor, in fact, do I think they refer to 'absurd things' to each other - they're blowing off steam to me).
Yes, people disagree, as I said before, but agreement on substantive issues, especially the big ones of morality, values and beliefs is important. Unless morality, values and beliefs are situational - that is, there is no mutual agreement, only whatever one person wants to do. And you don't know that your friends don't refer to abusrd things - you are inferring. They very well may do so.
If they do, do you think it would be good for the children? From your statement, I infer that you don't think it is a good thing.

Quote
I don't understand the first part of what you say above - why do you think I believe that?
Then you don't believe that children should decide for themselves what religion they will be brought up in? Then who will be doing the deciding?

Quote
I'm sorry, I don't follow. I said I didn't understand why you thought I believed those things - why is this necessarily to do with children 'deciding' to follow a religion? In my experience, one doesn't 'decide' such a thing, the way you might decide to have beef for dinner - if you have faith, you have faith.
So how does one "get" faith? How does one even know that faith is something that one would like to know about or decide about, that faith exists and is a good thing - unless one is exposed to it.
Which will that be, for your children? Or will you leave it up to them? (you certainly don't have to answer this - it's very personal)
You, I hope, won't let them decide for themselves whether or not they will be immunized or get their teeth seen to or go to the doctor or get an education.
These are important, not optional, things - which the parents should take care of, just like ensuring that their children are brought up in a religion.
Quote
Excuse me? What evidence do you have for saying my marriage isn't working well?!
What evidence do you have that I was referring to your marriage? I was actually referring to the sorry state of society today - as I mentioned before and you responded to - we have the evidence before us.

Quote
I will say, one thing that has brought us into close agreement with each other is reading threads like these and finding the blueprint for exactly how *not* to parent or relate to each other!
Yes, why listen to people who already have children or who have been married for many years? Or who have actually grown up in a inter (or no) faith household?
How could they possibly possess insights that you lack?
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,300



« Reply #152 on: September 07, 2010, 12:15:12 PM »

I had to take a little while to respond to this.

Katherine, you chose to give me unsolicited advice, in the middle of a thread that someone else had started. You can hardly blame me for feeling that this is inappropriate.
I shared with you what it feels like for a child to grow up in a so-called "interfaith" marriage, and with research that I have read on the subject. I have challenged certain assumptions or statements that you have made, which I disagree with - isn't that the purpose of a discussion? Or have I misunderstood?
Quote
What upsets me more is that, although I have sought advice from my priest, you - a laywoman - have decided that your personal feelings are worthy of more consideration than the advice of our priest.
Please show me where I have done this, and I will most earnestly beg your and his pardon. I don't believe that I have ever said, "ignore your priest's advice."

Quote
It is very difficult for me to understand how the Orthodox Church can claim to be in any way unified, when lay members take issue with the decisions of priests and bishops (yes, of course, we checked with the bishop that he approved the marriage).
Again, where have I encouraged you to disobey your bishop?

Quote
I have said, earlier in this thread, that it did not seem relevant to the original topic to discuss whether or not Anglicanism is correct (since Minasomalian, who started the thread, is not Anglican and is not dating an Anglican woman). The responses on this thread seem, to me, to display a fair amount of ignorance. That is understandable, since this is an Orthodox forum, but I don't see why there is this enthusiasm to continue spreading incorrect ideas. If you look at the continuation of the thread that split from this one, sensible questions on specific issues were asked - why would that have been so difficult for you?
Again, please show me where I have made ignorant or incorrect statements about Anglicanism, and I will apologize. While I am not a scholar of Anglican theology, I am somewhat familiar with it since I have attended Episcopal church in the past. Perhaps one problem may be that the American version (ECUSA) varies significantly from the English version.)

Quote
You seem to think that moral rectitude is a concept unique to Orthodox Christians, despite the copious theological and anecdotal evidence to the contrary. If you genuinely believe (as you argue) that Orthodox Christians are automatically morally superior, perhaps you would be more comfortable as a member of one of the evangelical 'churches'?
Again, please let me know where I have said anything of the sort, and I will beg your pardon.

Quote
I hope you understand what I am trying to say. I simply cannot understand why the you think that the Orthodox Church is best served by having its most ignorant, lay members attempting to argue with ordained clergy.
No, I can honestly say that I have no idea what you are trying to say, since most of what you have imputed to me is not at all what I have said or meant to say. While it is true that I am the first of sinners, do you really think that it is kind to refer to me as ignorant?
Is it not allowed for Anglicans to disagree with ordained clergy?







Yes, you're right that big differences are more important than small ones - but actually, I think most people do have at least one area of significant disagreement, even if it doesn't emerge for quite a while. For example, lots of my friends are just getting to the age when their children need to go to school, and there are lots of state/private disagreements breaking out, which are really difficult to resolve (and, obviously, have far-reaching implications). As far as I know, none of these couples particularly foresaw disagreement, either (I hear a lot of disbelief at 'the absurd things s/he believes!')

Ok, now imagine these disagreements breaking out, which are really difficult to resolve and have far-reaching implications, about religion, in addition to whatever undiscovered disagreements that exist.  And that your children are privy to the remarks about the "absurd things" each of you believes about something as important as God, morality, values, beliefs and faith.
Do you think that makes for a serene and happy home life for the children? From personal experience, even with parents who loved each other devotedly, I can tell you that it doesn't.

Katherine, I'm saying I think people disagree, it's natural. I don't think it's even unhealthy. Btw, I don't think my friends argue in front of their children (nor, in fact, do I think they refer to 'absurd things' to each other - they're blowing off steam to me).
Yes, people disagree, as I said before, but agreement on substantive issues, especially the big ones of morality, values and beliefs is important. Unless morality, values and beliefs are situational - that is, there is no mutual agreement, only whatever one person wants to do. And you don't know that your friends don't refer to abusrd things - you are inferring. They very well may do so.
If they do, do you think it would be good for the children? From your statement, I infer that you don't think it is a good thing.

Quote
I don't understand the first part of what you say above - why do you think I believe that?
Then you don't believe that children should decide for themselves what religion they will be brought up in? Then who will be doing the deciding?

Quote
I'm sorry, I don't follow. I said I didn't understand why you thought I believed those things - why is this necessarily to do with children 'deciding' to follow a religion? In my experience, one doesn't 'decide' such a thing, the way you might decide to have beef for dinner - if you have faith, you have faith.
So how does one "get" faith? How does one even know that faith is something that one would like to know about or decide about, that faith exists and is a good thing - unless one is exposed to it.
Which will that be, for your children? Or will you leave it up to them? (you certainly don't have to answer this - it's very personal)
You, I hope, won't let them decide for themselves whether or not they will be immunized or get their teeth seen to or go to the doctor or get an education.
These are important, not optional, things - which the parents should take care of, just like ensuring that their children are brought up in a religion.
Quote
Excuse me? What evidence do you have for saying my marriage isn't working well?!
What evidence do you have that I was referring to your marriage? I was actually referring to the sorry state of society today - as I mentioned before and you responded to - we have the evidence before us.

Quote
I will say, one thing that has brought us into close agreement with each other is reading threads like these and finding the blueprint for exactly how *not* to parent or relate to each other!
Yes, why listen to people who already have children or who have been married for many years? Or who have actually grown up in a inter (or no) faith household?
How could they possibly possess insights that you lack?
[/quote]
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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 0.506 seconds with 179 queries.