OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 23, 2014, 07:28:26 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: More Sheep Stealing  (Read 29214 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,976


WWW
« Reply #270 on: November 07, 2009, 07:35:52 PM »

The 'sands of time' are irrelevant to a God who is beyond time. It is human arrogance (again, much witnessed to in the Old Testament) that makes us think that God will work in measures of human time - a lifetime, a century.

Did human arrogance end with the Resurrection of Jesus Christ?  If yes, how has it been repackaged?  If not, how does it exist?

I don't see why arrogance should have ended with Christ's Resurrection? What is the point of the question?

Whether or not humans stopped being arrogant.

BTW, I know you aren't Calvinist.  Anyway, the title of the article is: The Divine Egotist — Is God Arrogant, Selfish, or Megalomaniacal?.  The site does take a while to load in the US - a little longer for the UK.


If we still think of God as somewhat similar to an idol, or an idea, that is subject to adaptation or change, then we create a 'god' our of our own minds. God is God. We look to the Spirit to guide us. We do not presume to know the 'form' of God, but only have faith in His Son.

Quote
Ah, you were close to saying "True God of True God" as stated in the Nicene Creed.   Wink

At last, something we can agree on! That is exactly it: if you will only look at the Nicene Creed, you will see a perfect statement of the relationship between us believers and God.

Which God?  The one Henry VIII created as His servant?  The one who walked on Earth as Jesus Christ?  The one who opened up the Earth and swallowed the rebellious sons of Korah, the one who rose from the Dead trampling down Death and bestowing Life to those in the tombs or the one who filled Solomon's Temple with smoke and fragrance.
Logged
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,215



« Reply #271 on: November 07, 2009, 08:35:43 PM »

We have to ask whether or not the Holy Spirit has stayed, in an unbroken line, with this Church. This, I think, is something that history - even the history of the Apostolic Succession - cannot tell us.

If He (the Holy Spirit) has not, then we are all lost.

Yes, I meant that we regard Apostolic Succession as probably a fable, and even if it happens to be historically true, of no spiritual or soteriological significance.

For the Incarnation of the God-man to be effective, he has to not only impart the fullness of the Truth of our salvation at one moment and then leave it to be discerned by others.  He must also preserve it for future generations.  If the Truth is delivered in its fullness, then lost, then must somehow be regained, then we have no hope.

It is not our duty as Christians to have to 'figure out' the Truth.  If the Truth and the authority of the Church was so easily lost in the sands of history, then how can we have any confidence in the strength and efficacy of this God?  What a weak and feeble God he must be, that delusion and falsehood could conquer His Church.  Perhaps we should seek out a more effective God, as this one has proven impotent?

And even if it was all part of God's divine plan to deliver a magic book to the world whereby the people could discern ultimate Truth, why has this proven ineffective, as there is no clear consensus among the Protestant sects how any of this "salvation" business works?  If the Church which affirmed the authority of particular texts over others has proven itself corrupt, based on fables, myths and fabrications, then why should people like you even affirm them at all?

If we are left with a religious text with no external teaching attached to it, we have no context to see how it should play out in reality.  So ultimately, these groups end up projecting their own biases and perspectives onto the text; superimposing themselves into the story.  So what they end up with is an 'early church' fashioned in their own image, and a God which affirms it.  A God which is, at least in some ways, their own creation: a Conceptual Idol.

The term "reform" itself connotes idolatry, because humans are the ones doing the creating.  Imagine that God has given us an "image" of Himself in Christ and His teachings.  Now imagine that this image is replicated in not only iconography, but in worship praxis, in the Holy Scriptures, and in the teachings passed on to his followers.  All of his makes the fullness of the "image" of God; the very Body of Christ on earth.

Now when a person seeks to "reform" an image, what must be done?  If it is cast in bronze or gold, it must be melted down, and then the image must be recast.  But with no image left to reference, the sculptor must take whatever materials remain and rearrange them to the best of his ability, in what ways he sees most fit.  So he fashions a new image; one that is crafted to the best of his ability.  However, it is impossible that this image could ever reflect its original form.

Therefore it seems to me that you are taking the leftover materials after everything is melted down and rearranging them according to your own understanding, not in the fullness of understanding which was originally given.  You look not only to the Holy Scriptures, but also to the Creeds and councils and patch together that which conforms to your own understanding of the Scriptures, and remove that which does not.  Therefore your faith becomes your own creation.

Forgive my bluntness, but if our Church's authority is claimed by fables and myths, then your churches are merely the afterbirth of a lie; the discharge from a carcass.

Can I nominate this for Post of the Month? Beautifully and wisely stated, Alveus!

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #272 on: November 07, 2009, 10:52:52 PM »

Certainly. I have forwarded it to the other moderators.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #273 on: November 08, 2009, 06:52:44 AM »

The 'sands of time' are irrelevant to a God who is beyond time. It is human arrogance (again, much witnessed to in the Old Testament) that makes us think that God will work in measures of human time - a lifetime, a century.

Did human arrogance end with the Resurrection of Jesus Christ?  If yes, how has it been repackaged?  If not, how does it exist?

I don't see why arrogance should have ended with Christ's Resurrection? What is the point of the question?

Whether or not humans stopped being arrogant.

BTW, I know you aren't Calvinist.  Anyway, the title of the article is: The Divine Egotist — Is God Arrogant, Selfish, or Megalomaniacal?.  The site does take a while to load in the US - a little longer for the UK.


If we still think of God as somewhat similar to an idol, or an idea, that is subject to adaptation or change, then we create a 'god' our of our own minds. God is God. We look to the Spirit to guide us. We do not presume to know the 'form' of God, but only have faith in His Son.

Quote
Ah, you were close to saying "True God of True God" as stated in the Nicene Creed.   Wink

At last, something we can agree on! That is exactly it: if you will only look at the Nicene Creed, you will see a perfect statement of the relationship between us believers and God.

Which God?  The one Henry VIII created as His servant?  The one who walked on Earth as Jesus Christ?  The one who opened up the Earth and swallowed the rebellious sons of Korah, the one who rose from the Dead trampling down Death and bestowing Life to those in the tombs or the one who filled Solomon's Temple with smoke and fragrance.

I'm sorry, that site just times out on me. I don't have access to a terribly fast connection here; might try again when I'm in college. But I don't think humans ever stop being arrogant, no.

Although I said that the Creed was a statement of our relationship with God, it also explains as nearly as possible what God is - to get any closer, we have to believe and worship. I don't think the reference to Henry VIII is helpful: he was a Catholic king who made a decision based on politics and his own sense of expediency. He didn't want to change his own worship, and I believe he died a (presumably rather guilt-ridden) Catholic. And I'm Anglican, so I when I say God, I would refer you back to the Creed to see what I mean by that. It can't be that unfamiliar to you, surely? I thought you used it nearly as often as we do?
Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #274 on: November 08, 2009, 05:08:13 PM »

I don't think the reference to Henry VIII is helpful: he was a Catholic king who made a decision based on politics and his own sense of expediency. He didn't want to change his own worship, and I believe he died a (presumably rather guilt-ridden) Catholic. And I'm Anglican, so I when I say God, I would refer you back to the Creed to see what I mean by that. It can't be that unfamiliar to you, surely? I thought you used it nearly as often as we do?

I found the above a little confusing Liz. Henry VIII died the official head of the Church of England which he had personally separated on both an formal administrative and eucharistic level from the Roman Communion some 14 years earlier. This is a matter of documented history not personal belief. Many of the later developments in faith and practice which would clearly distinguish Anglicanism from Roman Catholicism were enacted later, but it was Henry's decision (and power to carry out that decision) to separate the Church of England into an independent body which made it possible for later Anglican authorities to even discuss such changes independent of Rome. Therefore, in any discussion of the historical validity (which it seems to me, is what this thread has turned to) of various Christian Churches, I don't see how Henry VIII can not be relevant?
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #275 on: November 08, 2009, 05:50:20 PM »

I don't think the reference to Henry VIII is helpful: he was a Catholic king who made a decision based on politics and his own sense of expediency. He didn't want to change his own worship, and I believe he died a (presumably rather guilt-ridden) Catholic. And I'm Anglican, so I when I say God, I would refer you back to the Creed to see what I mean by that. It can't be that unfamiliar to you, surely? I thought you used it nearly as often as we do?

I found the above a little confusing Liz. Henry VIII died the official head of the Church of England which he had personally separated on both an formal administrative and eucharistic level from the Roman Communion some 14 years earlier. This is a matter of documented history not personal belief. Many of the later developments in faith and practice which would clearly distinguish Anglicanism from Roman Catholicism were enacted later, but it was Henry's decision (and power to carry out that decision) to separate the Church of England into an independent body which made it possible for later Anglican authorities to even discuss such changes independent of Rome. Therefore, in any discussion of the historical validity (which it seems to me, is what this thread has turned to) of various Christian Churches, I don't see how Henry VIII can not be relevant?

It is all quite confusing. In particular, I've noticed that even in the brief time since I was at school, historians have come along with new emphases and new interpretations. Henry VIII worshiped as a Catholic, and quite clearly considered some of the 'new' (Protestant) ideas to be dangerously heretical. The threat to the Real Presence doctrine, for one. He certainly had a strong belief in Purgatory and the need for prayers for the dead. I don't think anyone could argue he was a proto-Anglican, whatever consequences his actions may have had for the Anglican Church.

I am not so sure that it was he who made it 'possible for later Anglican authorities to even discuss such changes independent of Rome'. Luther died in 1456; Calvin in 1564. Elizabeth I only became queen in 1558, and changes didn't happen overnight. So, there were very obvious examples of how one might establish a Church (and indeed, a state) independent from the Pope, even if you think Elizabeth's younger brother wasn't a valid example of such. Henry VIII is relevant to the historical narrative, but not, I think, to any discussion of the validity (or otherwise) of the Anglican Church.
Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #276 on: November 08, 2009, 07:24:12 PM »

I am not so sure that it was he who made it 'possible for later Anglican authorities to even discuss such changes independent of Rome'. Luther died in 1456; Calvin in 1564. Elizabeth I only became queen in 1558, and changes didn't happen overnight. So, there were very obvious examples of how one might establish a Church (and indeed, a state) independent from the Pope, even if you think Elizabeth's younger brother wasn't a valid example of such. Henry VIII is relevant to the historical narrative, but not, I think, to any discussion of the validity (or otherwise) of the Anglican Church.

When Henry VIII broke the eucharistic and administrative ties between England and Rome, he created a situation in which no one who as more dedicated to the Roman tradition than himself could hold a position of authority, either in the episcopate or the royal administration. Individuals who were dedicated to the Roman tradition either left on their own or were purged (for example Thomas More). Thus, while it is undoubtedly true that Henry VIII was himself much closer theologically to traditional Roman Catholicism than the Anglican reformers who came to power under and after him, the fact is that he created a situation in which only those who were predisposed to question or reject the Roman tradition had the power to make decisions about the course of the Church of England.

Furthermore, if Henry had not broken with Rome, there would have been no Edward VI and no regency period in which the Archbishop of Canterbury could, operating without supervision by the teenage king, could institute additional reforms. The immediate heir would have been Mary, whose own reign would have been very different if she were simply continuing her father's policies instead of having to try to roll back all the changes made in the last 14 years of his reign, plus those of her brother. (Or, since we are discussing theoreticals, if the Pope had granted Henry's annulment and otherwise been more accomadating so there was still an Edward VI, the regent government for Edward would have been headed by figures like Thomas More and his devout sister--and Cranmer would not have been archbishop).

Protestantism undoubtedly would have entered England as it did every other Western European nation. But without Henry VIII letting it in at the top of the institutional church it would have been in the form of anti-establishment movements and very different from the episcopal, middle-road path which distinguished Anglicanism from other forms of Protestant groups. (If it survived at all--Tudor England as a centralized monarchy had far more in common with France or Spain, where Protestantism did not survive in any significant form, than it did with the hodge-podge of loosely related German states where Protestantism first flourished).

One can always speculate counterfactuals (what if Constantine the Great hadn't legalized Christianity when he did, what would have happened to the EO/OO split if the initial Muslim expansion hadn't removed Egypt and Syria from Constantinople's political power, what if Rome had continued to reject the filioque). But in the realm of what actually happened, Henry VIII is clearly pivotal in the development of 'Anglicanism' as it has historically existed.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #277 on: November 08, 2009, 08:37:09 PM »

I am not so sure that it was he who made it 'possible for later Anglican authorities to even discuss such changes independent of Rome'. Luther died in 1456; Calvin in 1564. Elizabeth I only became queen in 1558, and changes didn't happen overnight. So, there were very obvious examples of how one might establish a Church (and indeed, a state) independent from the Pope, even if you think Elizabeth's younger brother wasn't a valid example of such. Henry VIII is relevant to the historical narrative, but not, I think, to any discussion of the validity (or otherwise) of the Anglican Church.

When Henry VIII broke the eucharistic and administrative ties between England and Rome, he created a situation in which no one who as more dedicated to the Roman tradition than himself could hold a position of authority, either in the episcopate or the royal administration. Individuals who were dedicated to the Roman tradition either left on their own or were purged (for example Thomas More). Thus, while it is undoubtedly true that Henry VIII was himself much closer theologically to traditional Roman Catholicism than the Anglican reformers who came to power under and after him, the fact is that he created a situation in which only those who were predisposed to question or reject the Roman tradition had the power to make decisions about the course of the Church of England.

Furthermore, if Henry had not broken with Rome, there would have been no Edward VI and no regency period in which the Archbishop of Canterbury could, operating without supervision by the teenage king, could institute additional reforms. The immediate heir would have been Mary, whose own reign would have been very different if she were simply continuing her father's policies instead of having to try to roll back all the changes made in the last 14 years of his reign, plus those of her brother. (Or, since we are discussing theoreticals, if the Pope had granted Henry's annulment and otherwise been more accomadating so there was still an Edward VI, the regent government for Edward would have been headed by figures like Thomas More and his devout sister--and Cranmer would not have been archbishop).

Protestantism undoubtedly would have entered England as it did every other Western European nation. But without Henry VIII letting it in at the top of the institutional church it would have been in the form of anti-establishment movements and very different from the episcopal, middle-road path which distinguished Anglicanism from other forms of Protestant groups. (If it survived at all--Tudor England as a centralized monarchy had far more in common with France or Spain, where Protestantism did not survive in any significant form, than it did with the hodge-podge of loosely related German states where Protestantism first flourished).

One can always speculate counterfactuals (what if Constantine the Great hadn't legalized Christianity when he did, what would have happened to the EO/OO split if the initial Muslim expansion hadn't removed Egypt and Syria from Constantinople's political power, what if Rome had continued to reject the filioque). But in the realm of what actually happened, Henry VIII is clearly pivotal in the development of 'Anglicanism' as it has historically existed.

Ah, ok, I see your point. Thanks. I wasn't thinking so much of speculation as of whether or not I should consider Henry VIII when thinking about the validity of my Church. I was responding to a post by SolEX01, and also to another post made a few days ago, both of which seemed to me to be (basically) using Henry VIII as a straw man for 'everything that is wrong with the Anglicans'.

I have said before, I have come into this thread because I believe one of the root causes of 'sheep stealing' is when one or another religious group is significantly ignorant about the faith of another. In the OP, it seems that Baptists were really quite limited in their understanding of (and respect for) Orthodox Churchgoers. Later in this thread, it seemed that various posters were ignorant about Protestantism, which I suppose causes the reverse problem. Certainly, I can't count the number of well-meaning people I've come into contact with since meeting my Orthodox partner, whose attempts to lead me towards Orthodoxy were based on fundamental lack of knowledge about my faith.

However, it seems that now we're starting to get into a discussion that is rather more subtle, and though I'm sure it'd be interesting to think about the might-have-beens (I'd not thought, but of course you are right that, had Henry's daughter Mary succeeded him, the Anglican Church certainly wouldn't have been the same), this isn't the place to do it, nor does it add much to the thread, because it's likely to confuse anyone who is looking to clarify their understanding. I hope that sounds ok to you.
Logged
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,976


WWW
« Reply #278 on: November 09, 2009, 02:05:43 AM »

Ah, ok, I see your point. Thanks. I wasn't thinking so much of speculation as of whether or not I should consider Henry VIII when thinking about the validity of my Church. I was responding to a post by SolEX01, and also to another post made a few days ago, both of which seemed to me to be (basically) using Henry VIII as a straw man for 'everything that is wrong with the Anglicans'.

Where did I say Henry VIII was a straw man for what is wrong with the Anglican Church?  I used Henry VIII as an example of how He created His own God (e.g., Himself) to circumvent the Catholic Church's rules of no divorce.  As devoted, faithful and pious as Henry VIII was, he may not realized at the time what he was doing and his decision was mutually exclusive of Protestantism's eventual reach to the British Isles.  However, his example set forth the idea of creating one's own religion to suit one's purposes.  The Orthodox have freely chosen not to take that road.  So, to keep beating the gay marriage issue to death, if Roman Catholics or Orthodox do not allow gay marriages or gay Hierarchs, the "Anglican Communion", following the footsteps of their founder Henry VIII, make it up as they go along and place the Communion at risk for schism.

I have said before, I have come into this thread because I believe one of the root causes of 'sheep stealing' is when one or another religious group is significantly ignorant about the faith of another. In the OP, it seems that Baptists were really quite limited in their understanding of (and respect for) Orthodox Churchgoers.

If I were a Kosovar Albanian of any denomination (Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim) and confident in my faith, I probably would ignore any missionary who came my way.  Missionaries also take advantage of changes in political upheaval; one example is the missionaries in China as the country's empires ended and replaced with Westernization.  Pearl Buck, author of the Good Earth, was a missionary to China herself and the daughter of missionaries.

Later in this thread, it seemed that various posters were ignorant about Protestantism, which I suppose causes the reverse problem. Certainly, I can't count the number of well-meaning people I've come into contact with since meeting my Orthodox partner, whose attempts to lead me towards Orthodoxy were based on fundamental lack of knowledge about my faith.

You choose to remain Anglican - case closed.
 
However, it seems that now we're starting to get into a discussion that is rather more subtle, and though I'm sure it'd be interesting to think about the might-have-beens (I'd not thought, but of course you are right that, had Henry's daughter Mary succeeded him, the Anglican Church certainly wouldn't have been the same), this isn't the place to do it, nor does it add much to the thread, because it's likely to confuse anyone who is looking to clarify their understanding. I hope that sounds ok to you.

You can split the part about Queen Mary to another thread.  We have resident historians who might like to discuss 16th Century English Monarchs.   Grin
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #279 on: November 09, 2009, 04:55:37 AM »

Ah, ok, I see your point. Thanks. I wasn't thinking so much of speculation as of whether or not I should consider Henry VIII when thinking about the validity of my Church. I was responding to a post by SolEX01, and also to another post made a few days ago, both of which seemed to me to be (basically) using Henry VIII as a straw man for 'everything that is wrong with the Anglicans'.

Where did I say Henry VIII was a straw man for what is wrong with the Anglican Church?

A straw man is something introduced during debate by one side, which they claim is a valid 'target' for their barbs, but which was in fact set up by the same side for target practice, and which is not an enemy figure from the opposing side. By definition, you're hardly going say, 'here is my straw man'. But that's how I perceive this argument; I apologize if that's harsh, but the despite the man's actions, he was by no stretch of the imagination Anglican himself. I'm sorry, but the example that occurs is this: do we deny Christ's divinity and resurrection because the one who came before him, John the Baptist, was human and was killed? No. Do we believe that John led the way? Yes. In the same way: does Henry VIII's (whom I do not wish to compare to John the Baptist in any other sense) action stop us from accepting the Anglican Church as true? No.

Quote
I used Henry VIII as an example of how He created His own God (e.g., Himself) to circumvent the Catholic Church's rules of no divorce.  As devoted, faithful and pious as Henry VIII was, he may not realized at the time what he was doing and his decision was mutually exclusive of Protestantism's eventual reach to the British Isles.  However, his example set forth the idea of creating one's own religion to suit one's purposes.  The Orthodox have freely chosen not to take that road.  So, to keep beating the gay marriage issue to death, if Roman Catholics or Orthodox do not allow gay marriages or gay Hierarchs, the "Anglican Communion", following the footsteps of their founder Henry VIII, make it up as they go along and place the Communion at risk for schism.

I have said before, I have come into this thread because I believe one of the root causes of 'sheep stealing' is when one or another religious group is significantly ignorant about the faith of another. In the OP, it seems that Baptists were really quite limited in their understanding of (and respect for) Orthodox Churchgoers.

If I were a Kosovar Albanian of any denomination (Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim) and confident in my faith, I probably would ignore any missionary who came my way.  Missionaries also take advantage of changes in political upheaval; one example is the missionaries in China as the country's empires ended and replaced with Westernization.  Pearl Buck, author of the Good Earth, was a missionary to China herself and the daughter of missionaries.

Later in this thread, it seemed that various posters were ignorant about Protestantism, which I suppose causes the reverse problem. Certainly, I can't count the number of well-meaning people I've come into contact with since meeting my Orthodox partner, whose attempts to lead me towards Orthodoxy were based on fundamental lack of knowledge about my faith.

You choose to remain Anglican - case closed.
 
However, it seems that now we're starting to get into a discussion that is rather more subtle, and though I'm sure it'd be interesting to think about the might-have-beens (I'd not thought, but of course you are right that, had Henry's daughter Mary succeeded him, the Anglican Church certainly wouldn't have been the same), this isn't the place to do it, nor does it add much to the thread, because it's likely to confuse anyone who is looking to clarify their understanding. I hope that sounds ok to you.

You can split the part about Queen Mary to another thread.  We have resident historians who might like to discuss 16th Century English Monarchs.   Grin
« Last Edit: November 09, 2009, 04:56:02 AM by Liz » Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,187



« Reply #280 on: November 09, 2009, 05:29:31 PM »

From Orthodox History, "I recently stumbled upon an interesting book, Fair Athens, written by Elizabeth Edmonds in 1881. Edmonds recounted a story that I suspect readers of this website will appreciate:
To send missionaries here [to Greece], with the intention of evangelizing, is futile, and the answer of a Greek peasant to some active Americans bent upon his conversion is quite to the point and conclusive. A copy of the Testament was offered to him, in modern Greek. On the title page he read, “Translated from the original Greek.”
“Thank you,” he said, giving it back; “we have the original.”

http://orthodoxhistory.org/
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 #281 on: November 09, 2009, 05:55:25 PM »

From Orthodox History, "I recently stumbled upon an interesting book, Fair Athens, written by Elizabeth Edmonds in 1881. Edmonds recounted a story that I suspect readers of this website will appreciate:
To send missionaries here [to Greece], with the intention of evangelizing, is futile, and the answer of a Greek peasant to some active Americans bent upon his conversion is quite to the point and conclusive. A copy of the Testament was offered to him, in modern Greek. On the title page he read, “Translated from the original Greek.”
“Thank you,” he said, giving it back; “we have the original.”

http://orthodoxhistory.org/


 Cheesy
Logged
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,976


WWW
« Reply #282 on: November 09, 2009, 05:57:49 PM »

A straw man is something introduced during debate by one side, which they claim is a valid 'target' for their barbs, but which was in fact set up by the same side for target practice, and which is not an enemy figure from the opposing side. By definition, you're hardly going say, 'here is my straw man'. But that's how I perceive this argument; I apologize if that's harsh, but the despite the man's actions, he was by no stretch of the imagination Anglican himself.

Just as God Himself never told anyone He was Jewish.   Wink

I'm sorry, but the example that occurs is this: do we deny Christ's divinity and resurrection because the one who came before him, John the Baptist, was human and was killed? No. Do we believe that John led the way? Yes. In the same way: does Henry VIII's (whom I do not wish to compare to John the Baptist in any other sense) action stop us from accepting the Anglican Church as true? No.

What's wrong with comparing Henry VIII to John the Baptist?  I see one difference; people freely and voluntarily repented of their sins to receive Baptism from John the Baptist.  If one disagreed with and opposed Henry VIII, there was the Tower of London and a basket waiting for one's severed head.   angel
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #283 on: November 09, 2009, 06:10:32 PM »

A straw man is something introduced during debate by one side, which they claim is a valid 'target' for their barbs, but which was in fact set up by the same side for target practice, and which is not an enemy figure from the opposing side. By definition, you're hardly going say, 'here is my straw man'. But that's how I perceive this argument; I apologize if that's harsh, but the despite the man's actions, he was by no stretch of the imagination Anglican himself.
Just as God Himself never told anyone He was Jewish.   Wink


Nice!  Cheesy Although I suspect Christ was, let us say in the terminology of the 'personal problems' columns, more 'self aware' than Henry!

I'm sorry, but the example that occurs is this: do we deny Christ's divinity and resurrection because the one who came before him, John the Baptist, was human and was killed? No. Do we believe that John led the way? Yes. In the same way: does Henry VIII's (whom I do not wish to compare to John the Baptist in any other sense) action stop us from accepting the Anglican Church as true? No.

What's wrong with comparing Henry VIII to John the Baptist?  I see one difference; people freely and voluntarily repented of their sins to receive Baptism from John the Baptist.  If one disagreed with and opposed Henry VIII, there was the Tower of London and a basket waiting for one's severed head.   angel
[/quote]

That's very nice of you to say  Wink I was a bit worried I'd offend by making the comparison - after all, John the Baptist is a saint and a great witness to the life of Christ, whereas I am aware that for you (and for me, though not for all Anglicans) Henry VIII was a heretic. I just meant to suggest that someone may be first in a movement, but not the true founder or impetus of change.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2009, 06:11:43 PM by Liz » Logged
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,976


WWW
« Reply #284 on: November 09, 2009, 06:42:36 PM »

Just as God Himself never told anyone He was Jewish.   Wink

Nice!  Cheesy Although I suspect Christ was, let us say in the terminology of the 'personal problems' columns, more 'self aware' than Henry!

Do you see the point?  Huh

I'm sorry, but the example that occurs is this: do we deny Christ's divinity and resurrection because the one who came before him, John the Baptist, was human and was killed? No. Do we believe that John led the way? Yes. In the same way: does Henry VIII's (whom I do not wish to compare to John the Baptist in any other sense) action stop us from accepting the Anglican Church as true? No.

Quote from: SolEX01
What's wrong with comparing Henry VIII to John the Baptist?  I see one difference; people freely and voluntarily repented of their sins to receive Baptism from John the Baptist.  If one disagreed with and opposed Henry VIII, there was the Tower of London and a basket waiting for one's severed head.   angel

That's very nice of you to say  Wink I was a bit worried I'd offend by making the comparison - after all, John the Baptist is a saint and a great witness to the life of Christ, whereas I am aware that for you (and for me, though not for all Anglicans) Henry VIII was a heretic. I just meant to suggest that someone may be first in a movement, but not the true founder or impetus of change.

Thank You.   Embarrassed  There was no offense.   Smiley

Where did I refer to Henry VIII as a heretic?  If anything, schismatic would be a more appropriate term for King Henry "separated" himself from the Roman Catholic Communion.  Using the bolded text, one can argue that Jesus Christ was merely the "first" in a movement and others can be "true founders" or "impetus of change."  The Byzantine Emperor St. Constantine is a classic example used by Greek-Americans to justify "hegemony" by Greek speaking people over the Orthodox World. 

As an aside, in 2008, I engaged a friend of mine in a 30 minute discussion about the above point that he was claiming the modern Orthodox Church Administrative Structure is derived from St. Constantine.  As much as I spent refuting his point, the man wouldn't give up.  We had to agree to disagree at the end although I believe he started looking at the Orthodox Church from a different perspective.

In his pagan days, St. Constantine was the earthly representation of "Jupiter."  On his death bed, St. Constantine was baptized into the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Because St. Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea, did St. Constantine become one of the "True Gods of True Gods" or even "true founders" of the Orthodox Christian Faith.  By extension, could the Church of England claim St. Constantine as a founder of the Church of England 11 Centuries before Henry VIII?
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #285 on: November 09, 2009, 06:52:33 PM »

Just as God Himself never told anyone He was Jewish.   Wink

Nice!  Cheesy Although I suspect Christ was, let us say in the terminology of the 'personal problems' columns, more 'self aware' than Henry!

Do you see the point?  Huh

Oh, I'm sorry: I don't think I did. If it's still relevant to the thread, could you explain? ... We might need to find a new thread - I think there is an old one on the Protestant Churches.


I'm sorry, but the example that occurs is this: do we deny Christ's divinity and resurrection because the one who came before him, John the Baptist, was human and was killed? No. Do we believe that John led the way? Yes. In the same way: does Henry VIII's (whom I do not wish to compare to John the Baptist in any other sense) action stop us from accepting the Anglican Church as true? No.

Quote from: SolEX01
What's wrong with comparing Henry VIII to John the Baptist?  I see one difference; people freely and voluntarily repented of their sins to receive Baptism from John the Baptist.  If one disagreed with and opposed Henry VIII, there was the Tower of London and a basket waiting for one's severed head.   angel

Quote

That's very nice of you to say  Wink I was a bit worried I'd offend by making the comparison - after all, John the Baptist is a saint and a great witness to the life of Christ, whereas I am aware that for you (and for me, though not for all Anglicans) Henry VIII was a heretic. I just meant to suggest that someone may be first in a movement, but not the true founder or impetus of change.

Thank You.   Embarrassed  There was no offense.   Smiley

Where did I refer to Henry VIII as a heretic?  If anything, schismatic would be a more appropriate term for King Henry "separated" himself from the Roman Catholic Communion.  Using the bolded text, one can argue that Jesus Christ was merely the "first" in a movement and others can be "true founders" or "impetus of change."  The Byzantine Emperor St. Constantine is a classic example used by Greek-Americans to justify "hegemony" by Greek speaking people over the Orthodox World. 

As an aside, in 2008, I engaged a friend of mine in a 30 minute discussion about the above point that he was claiming the modern Orthodox Church Administrative Structure is derived from St. Constantine.  As much as I spent refuting his point, the man wouldn't give up.  We had to agree to disagree at the end although I believe he started looking at the Orthodox Church from a different perspective.

In his pagan days, St. Constantine was the earthly representation of "Jupiter."  On his death bed, St. Constantine was baptized into the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Because St. Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea, did St. Constantine become one of the "True Gods of True Gods" or even "true founders" of the Orthodox Christian Faith.  By extension, could the Church of England claim St. Constantine as a founder of the Church of England 11 Centuries before Henry VIII?


I wouldn't 'claim' people as founders other than Jesus Christ. I think many good, devout and clever people were trying to make their way towards God, from the beginning of time.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2009, 06:53:11 PM by Liz » Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Old Calendar)
Posts: 6,786



« Reply #286 on: November 09, 2009, 07:56:02 PM »

On his death bed, St. Constantine was baptized into the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church...

...by an Arian.

Wait, what?
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,224


« Reply #287 on: November 09, 2009, 08:42:01 PM »

Quote
...by an Arian.

Wait, what?

"God works in mysterious ways" Wink
« Last Edit: November 09, 2009, 08:42:19 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,976


WWW
« Reply #288 on: November 09, 2009, 10:54:01 PM »

Just as God Himself never told anyone He was Jewish.   Wink

Nice!  Cheesy Although I suspect Christ was, let us say in the terminology of the 'personal problems' columns, more 'self aware' than Henry!

Do you see the point?  Huh


Oh, I'm sorry: I don't think I did. If it's still relevant to the thread, could you explain? ... We might need to find a new thread - I think there is an old one on the Protestant Churches.

Yes, it is relevant.   Smiley You mentioned that Christ was more "self aware" than Henry VIII based on "personal problems."  If we talk about missionaries and how they try to attract people with "personal problems" plus people who have no idea what "Christ" is like, then the missionary becomes the "face" of Christ to such a person.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,129


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #289 on: November 10, 2009, 11:50:25 AM »

I don't understand why people are stealing sheep. Why not steal one these animals? They are much more interesting.

http://webecoist.com/2008/08/24/strangest-endangered-species-and-animals/
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,492


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #290 on: November 10, 2009, 12:10:24 PM »

From Orthodox History, "I recently stumbled upon an interesting book, Fair Athens, written by Elizabeth Edmonds in 1881. Edmonds recounted a story that I suspect readers of this website will appreciate:
To send missionaries here [to Greece], with the intention of evangelizing, is futile, and the answer of a Greek peasant to some active Americans bent upon his conversion is quite to the point and conclusive. A copy of the Testament was offered to him, in modern Greek. On the title page he read, “Translated from the original Greek.”
“Thank you,” he said, giving it back; “we have the original.”

http://orthodoxhistory.org/


That  is similar to another story I have heard. It may just be apocryphal, I don't know. It goes like this:

Protestant Missionaries went to Iraq to Evangelize. They happend across a villiage where the people were all Christian. They were surprised to learn this and asked a resident: "Who converted this village to Christianity?".. The fellow thought for a moment and then replied: " It was St. Paul"
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,378


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #291 on: November 10, 2009, 12:21:57 PM »

Good grief this thread has wandered about!  Cheesy
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,378


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #292 on: November 10, 2009, 12:23:18 PM »

I don't understand why people are stealing sheep. Why not steal one these animals? They are much more interesting.

http://webecoist.com/2008/08/24/strangest-endangered-species-and-animals/

LOL!  laugh
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,129


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #293 on: November 10, 2009, 12:33:13 PM »

From Orthodox History, "I recently stumbled upon an interesting book, Fair Athens, written by Elizabeth Edmonds in 1881. Edmonds recounted a story that I suspect readers of this website will appreciate:
To send missionaries here [to Greece], with the intention of evangelizing, is futile, and the answer of a Greek peasant to some active Americans bent upon his conversion is quite to the point and conclusive. A copy of the Testament was offered to him, in modern Greek. On the title page he read, “Translated from the original Greek.”
“Thank you,” he said, giving it back; “we have the original.”

http://orthodoxhistory.org/



That  is similar to another story I have heard. It may just be apocryphal, I don't know. It goes like this:

Protestant Missionaries went to Iraq to Evangelize. They happend across a villiage where the people were all Christian. They were surprised to learn this and asked a resident: "Who converted this village to Christianity?".. The fellow thought for a moment and then replied: " It was St. Paul"

Cheesy  I love it.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2009, 12:33:36 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #294 on: November 10, 2009, 03:16:30 PM »

I don't understand why people are stealing sheep. Why not steal one these animals? They are much more interesting.

http://webecoist.com/2008/08/24/strangest-endangered-species-and-animals/

I was more than dissapointed that the semi-aquatic hairless ape missed that list!  Angry
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #295 on: November 10, 2009, 03:17:24 PM »

From Orthodox History, "I recently stumbled upon an interesting book, Fair Athens, written by Elizabeth Edmonds in 1881. Edmonds recounted a story that I suspect readers of this website will appreciate:
To send missionaries here [to Greece], with the intention of evangelizing, is futile, and the answer of a Greek peasant to some active Americans bent upon his conversion is quite to the point and conclusive. A copy of the Testament was offered to him, in modern Greek. On the title page he read, “Translated from the original Greek.”
“Thank you,” he said, giving it back; “we have the original.”

http://orthodoxhistory.org/


That  is similar to another story I have heard. It may just be apocryphal, I don't know. It goes like this:

Protestant Missionaries went to Iraq to Evangelize. They happend across a villiage where the people were all Christian. They were surprised to learn this and asked a resident: "Who converted this village to Christianity?".. The fellow thought for a moment and then replied: " It was St. Paul"

Slam!   Grin
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,156



WWW
« Reply #296 on: October 24, 2010, 07:51:52 PM »

What I can't get my head around is why Protestant missionaries target Christians as much or more than Muslims.

The Muslims and the Orthodox Christians are descended from the Christians of the first centuries of Christianity, who were the Orthodox Church. It looks like the Orthodox Church is their church, the church of the first centuries. If liberal mainstream protestantism claims that Protestantism is just as good as Orthodox, why not instead of leading the Christians and Muslims from the Orthodox Church, why not keep them in it or return them to it?

(Or nowadays do mainstream Protestant missionaries avoid targeting other Christians?]

After centuries of Wetsern missionary activity that intentionally targets both (but in practice goes after Orthodox more because they are friendlier to other Christians), the Muslim population is much bigger, and the Orthodox population shrunk to about half of the Christians there. I read that many Orthodox were attracted to the missionaries because they brought benefits like food and clothes at a time when they were living under Muslim rule (and now another occupation)

Likewise, some simple people in very poor Orthodox countries are glad when even Mormon or JW missionaries approach them with smiles and say they want to help them.

Here you have Muslims in the holy land and Muslims in ancient Christian homelands like Albania, genuinely interested in Christianity:

Quote
That a Muslim family like ours should have participated in these Christian festivals was not strange in the Palestine of the 1940s. We lived in a predominantly Christian neighbourhood in the western part of Jerusalem and it was natural for us to join them in their religious festivities

Our neighbours were mostly Greek Orthodox, although there was a small number of Protestants and Roman Catholics, whom we called "Latins", in the area. These latter groups were a recent phenomenon in Palestine. Until the nineteenth century, the vast majority of Palestinian Christians, who formed about 10 per cent of the population, belonged to the Greek Orthodox Church. From 1830 onwards, however, when Britain established the first foreign consulate in Jerusalem, Christian missionaries from a number of European countries began to arrive in Palestine. Despite their strenuous efforts, the missionaries succeeded only in convincing other Christians; they made no headway with either Muslims or Jews. Some Greek Orthodox now crossed over to other denominations
http://www.karmi.org/articles/content/Muslim_At_Feast.html

I am for spreading the word. That is what we must do. And I am glad to see the sincerity of many Protestant and Catholic missionaries to help the poor people in ancient countries.

But what should our attitude be about missionaries who come to Muslim countries and end up impacting most the native Orthodox?

Maybe we can hope that the Orthodox bishops will welcome them, and surprise them by revealing to them about Orthodoxy?
« Last Edit: October 24, 2010, 07:57:30 PM by rakovsky » Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Old Calendar)
Posts: 6,786



« Reply #297 on: October 24, 2010, 09:19:00 PM »

(Or nowadays do mainstream Protestant missionaries avoid targeting other Christians?)

Not in Ethiopia; that place is a war-zone between the Tewahedo and the Protestants.
Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,797


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #298 on: October 25, 2010, 03:59:38 AM »

What I can't get my head around is why Protestant missionaries target Christians as much or more than Muslims.

I cannot see the difference between our evangelism and church-planting in predominantly Orthodox areas, and your church-planting here in England and Wales. You are not 'targeting' (horrible word!) the mainly Moslem areas like Bradford (known as the Capital of Pakistan), but 'Christian' areas like Cornwall and Wales. My nerarest Orthodox church is across the border in England, and is itself a convert parish, or so they told me when I attended. Not for a moment am I questioning your right to do this: I am only saying that it seems to me to be the same thing as you say we do in 'your' areas.

But in fact - or certainly not the Mission I work for - we do not 'target' predominantly 'Christian' populations in areas where there are also Moslems. In Kosova most evangelism is undertaken among Moslems, for the reason that they are much more open and responsive than the Roman Catholic community. Whether any Evangelical church-planting has been undertaken in places like Gracanica, which is Orthodox, I could not say.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2010, 04:00:35 AM by David Young » Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
Tags: Proselytizing 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  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 0.159 seconds with 57 queries.