OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 23, 2014, 06:38:42 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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Power is Necessary for Peace: In Defense of Constantine  (Read 806 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« on: December 14, 2010, 04:36:09 PM »

by John Milbank

"Of course, the danger is always that the church will be submerged in state-power. And yet remember that the state also gets redeemed, as it were, by the church. So, the Justinian code really did make laws more humane, the codes of warfare really did become more constrained, and state and social welfare really did expand within Byzantium later in the West.

And further, without the addition of power to charity would the church have survived at all?

To refuse this addition is in a way to refuse the resurrection, and the fact that in the end it is Christ's kingly role which is eternal, and not his mediating priestly role.

Here I would suggest that perhaps the most uncomfortable historical fact for contemporary Christians is the debt that they owe to kings. Should Charles Martel in the face of the Muslims or Alfred of Wessex in the face of the pagans simply have laid down their swords?

If one feels that that would have ensured their salvation then one has to add that it would also have apparently rendered impossible our own within the course of historical time.

For the survival of Christianity was enabled by acts of military defiance and its survival otherwise would have been either marginal or non-existent....
....

Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings expresses with genius just how the Christian strategy is double and paradoxical. Gandalf coordinates a military campaign while Frodo self-sacrificially seeks to destroy forever the idol of absolute power. Both tactics are cooperatively necessary, and yet Frodo's tactic is more than a tactic. It is rather at one with the ultimate goal itself which is of peace and the renunciation of power for its own sake."
« Last Edit: December 14, 2010, 04:36:43 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,697



WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 14, 2010, 04:51:50 PM »

I'm not evincing an opinion here. State Power liberated some Orthodox places from foreign rule.

Tolkien I think can be helpful and persuasive, although on the other hand protestant thinkers aren't a foundation for Orthodox thought. I'm not be dismissive, just want to qualify. It seems that if you quoted deep thinkers like St Thomas More- the utopian, or eastern Christian writers, it might be somewhat more reliable.

It can be added that one saint, I think Sergei Radonezh, rejected being a bishop because he wouldn't wear gold. Another saint took an opposite view at about the same period in Russia.

It is complex relations between church and state, although ultimately they are separate entities.
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,951



« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2010, 05:26:58 PM »

Tolkien I think can be helpful and persuasive, although on the other hand protestant thinkers aren't a foundation for Orthodox thought.

I'm pretty sure Tolkien was Roman Catholic.
Logged
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2010, 05:32:34 PM »

Tolkien I think can be helpful and persuasive, although on the other hand protestant thinkers aren't a foundation for Orthodox thought.

I'm pretty sure Tolkien was Roman Catholic.

Tolkien was indeed Catholic. I think Rakovsky is thinking of CS Lewis who was of course an Anglican, albeit High Church.
Logged
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2010, 06:36:18 PM »


I personally don't buy into this new movement in Christian apologetics which essentially is claiming that Church basically never did anything wrong, ever and if you don't like that claim, well just be grateful the Church rescued civilization out of (fill in the blank) otherwise you wouldn't be hear to question this new apologetic to begin with. That's how I read and have heard this new apologetic for the last couple of years. It comes off as smug and arrogant not to mention it isn't honest about history.

I mean, I get that this extreme attempt at vindicating Church history is simply a knee jerk reaction against the extreme criticisms of some people like Richard Dawkins and others but like some of the New Atheists who really don't know much about Church history (Christopher Hitchens is actually an exception as he seems pretty well read on the subject) these apologists are assuming (hoping?) that everyone else is equally as ill informed about church history and and so they just try and spin doctor history in our favor. This is a favorite tactic of Dinesh D'Souza, whom I'm sure is a nice guy, and seems like someone who'd be fun to hang out with, but when it comes to apologetics he reminds me of a used care salesman. His claim that "only" 19 women were killed by the witch hunts is so absurd that I cannot even believe people buy into it. He, like a lot of these new order apologists are playing on the ignorance of the masses just as critics of religion do. Again, I'm not criticizing the man, only the tactics. (I find him to be very likable in fact, but just wish he'd stay out of "defending" (inventing?) a new Church history because he's one of the few guys who's actually stumped Hitchens in debate. (but never with the history thing, where he gets creamed)

This type of apologetic is nothing short of rewriting history and I've heard all sorts of apologists argue things like; The crusades weren't really that bad, Eastern Christians were always peaceful, unlike those evil "Latins", without Christianity Muslims would rule the world, (uh, without Christianity there would never have BEEN an Islamic religion to begin with), the witch hunts were  a minor event, the inquisitions "only" killed 2000 people, (what about the hundreds of thousands exiled, tortured, maimed, and driven from their homelands???), Christianity ended slavery, (yeah 1800 years after Jesus, and 1400 years after Church canons explicitly stated that if priests and bishops were courageous enough they should preach emancipation, whoops, I guess they weren't courageous enough?) we need Kings and Emperors to protect us plebs etc etc....

I don't buy any of this. I just think it's too much spin doctoring of history and plays into the hands of the New Atheists because they want Christians to make outrageous claims like this. I'm not saying the Church didn't do a lot of good that it never gets credit for, but the rewriting of history is what bugs me.

Now, as for LOTR...don't get me started....LOL!  I think using LOTR and Tolkien as a defense of war, having kings to rule us and the like is beyond ironic. I'm not sure what this fellow was thinking? I mean, have these people even read The Lord of the Rings? Or Tolkien's letters, or anything from the man at all? LOTR's stance that sometimes we must commit evil to prevent an even greater evil is hardly a resounding defense of the medieval world, and in all cases it is abundantly clear (at least in the books, but I think it is clear in the movies too) that the whole quest is a terrible horror that although it was thrust upon them, should never have happened in the first place. it's even more clear in the Extended Edition films. But as Gandalf says, all we can do is decide what to do with the time that is given to us. Isildor should have ended it, but he didn't; and evil was allowed to remain. Frodo's mission succeeds, but he is never the same hobbit; just like with soldiers who are in war, they are never the same. The line from the movie (and I can't remember if it's in the book or not) where Frodo says, "sometimes there is no going back." That's a major theme in Tolkien's writings. The hurt and pain runs too deep, we are never the same person we once were after a traumatic (or even a good) experience.

If you really want to get depressed read The Silmarillion which is one horrific failure after another, on the part of the elves. The Great Enemy (Morgoth, the first Dark Lord who created the Balrogs, that giant fire/creature in the first LOTR film) has power and rules the world not because of the elves fail to take up arms, but because they are so easily lead into power hungry corruption; they take kingship and turn into a means of oppressing their own brethren, all for the benefit of  their own people of course.  The elves of course eventually DO learn from their mistakes, but only in part because of the union of Beren and Luthien, (man and elf maiden), however it's always the self sacrifice that leads to the ultimate victory as is the case with Frodo, or Bilbo, or Beren and Luthien for that matter. 

Tolkien's stuff isn't a pacifist world view, that is true, but it is hardly a defense of Church and state union, or an apologetic for the authority of the king. It's almost always the kings who totally screw things up in all of Tolkien's stories. It's always the guys (or gals) with authority who botch things up, where as it is the little guy (ie: hobbits) or in Silmarillion someone like Beren) who gives hope to men and to elves. Its the empowerment of the little guy that saves the day. It takes a Hobbit to do what know one else in Middle Earth could have done, destroy the Ring of Power. It takes Beren, a mere mortal to do what no immortal being in all their glory could do, take back one of the Silmarils from the crown of Morgoth.

I don't think Tolkien can be used as an apologetic for anything. As he always said it is applicable but not allegory. However I really find it a bit of stretch to say LOTR shows how it's good to have kings and state religions when all the evils in all of Middle Earth began because someone wanted to be king or a king actually did something incredibly stupid. But everyone takes something different from  Tolkien which is what is so great about his work. But it is a tough sell for me anyways.

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

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2010, 09:00:29 PM »


I personally don't buy into this new movement in Christian apologetics which essentially is claiming that Church basically never did anything wrong, ever and if you don't like that claim, well just be grateful the Church rescued civilization out of (fill in the blank) otherwise you wouldn't be hear to question this new apologetic to begin with. That's how I read and have heard this new apologetic for the last couple of years. It comes off as smug and arrogant not to mention it isn't honest about history.

I mean, I get that this extreme attempt at vindicating Church history is simply a knee jerk reaction against the extreme criticisms of some people like Richard Dawkins and others but like some of the New Atheists who really don't know much about Church history (Christopher Hitchens is actually an exception as he seems pretty well read on the subject) these apologists are assuming (hoping?) that everyone else is equally as ill informed about church history and and so they just try and spin doctor history in our favor. This is a favorite tactic of Dinesh D'Souza, whom I'm sure is a nice guy, and seems like someone who'd be fun to hang out with, but when it comes to apologetics he reminds me of a used care salesman. His claim that "only" 19 women were killed by the witch hunts is so absurd that I cannot even believe people buy into it. He, like a lot of these new order apologists are playing on the ignorance of the masses just as critics of religion do. Again, I'm not criticizing the man, only the tactics. (I find him to be very likable in fact, but just wish he'd stay out of "defending" (inventing?) a new Church history because he's one of the few guys who's actually stumped Hitchens in debate. (but never with the history thing, where he gets creamed)

This type of apologetic is nothing short of rewriting history and I've heard all sorts of apologists argue things like; The crusades weren't really that bad, Eastern Christians were always peaceful, unlike those evil "Latins", without Christianity Muslims would rule the world, (uh, without Christianity there would never have BEEN an Islamic religion to begin with), the witch hunts were  a minor event, the inquisitions "only" killed 2000 people, (what about the hundreds of thousands exiled, tortured, maimed, and driven from their homelands???), Christianity ended slavery, (yeah 1800 years after Jesus, and 1400 years after Church canons explicitly stated that if priests and bishops were courageous enough they should preach emancipation, whoops, I guess they weren't courageous enough?) we need Kings and Emperors to protect us plebs etc etc....

I don't buy any of this. I just think it's too much spin doctoring of history and plays into the hands of the New Atheists because they want Christians to make outrageous claims like this. I'm not saying the Church didn't do a lot of good that it never gets credit for, but the rewriting of history is what bugs me.

Now, as for LOTR...don't get me started....LOL!  I think using LOTR and Tolkien as a defense of war, having kings to rule us and the like is beyond ironic. I'm not sure what this fellow was thinking? I mean, have these people even read The Lord of the Rings? Or Tolkien's letters, or anything from the man at all? LOTR's stance that sometimes we must commit evil to prevent an even greater evil is hardly a resounding defense of the medieval world, and in all cases it is abundantly clear (at least in the books, but I think it is clear in the movies too) that the whole quest is a terrible horror that although it was thrust upon them, should never have happened in the first place. it's even more clear in the Extended Edition films. But as Gandalf says, all we can do is decide what to do with the time that is given to us. Isildor should have ended it, but he didn't; and evil was allowed to remain. Frodo's mission succeeds, but he is never the same hobbit; just like with soldiers who are in war, they are never the same. The line from the movie (and I can't remember if it's in the book or not) where Frodo says, "sometimes there is no going back." That's a major theme in Tolkien's writings. The hurt and pain runs too deep, we are never the same person we once were after a traumatic (or even a good) experience.

If you really want to get depressed read The Silmarillion which is one horrific failure after another, on the part of the elves. The Great Enemy (Morgoth, the first Dark Lord who created the Balrogs, that giant fire/creature in the first LOTR film) has power and rules the world not because of the elves fail to take up arms, but because they are so easily lead into power hungry corruption; they take kingship and turn into a means of oppressing their own brethren, all for the benefit of  their own people of course.  The elves of course eventually DO learn from their mistakes, but only in part because of the union of Beren and Luthien, (man and elf maiden), however it's always the self sacrifice that leads to the ultimate victory as is the case with Frodo, or Bilbo, or Beren and Luthien for that matter.  

Tolkien's stuff isn't a pacifist world view, that is true, but it is hardly a defense of Church and state union, or an apologetic for the authority of the king. It's almost always the kings who totally screw things up in all of Tolkien's stories. It's always the guys (or gals) with authority who botch things up, where as it is the little guy (ie: hobbits) or in Silmarillion someone like Beren) who gives hope to men and to elves. Its the empowerment of the little guy that saves the day. It takes a Hobbit to do what know one else in Middle Earth could have done, destroy the Ring of Power. It takes Beren, a mere mortal to do what no immortal being in all their glory could do, take back one of the Silmarils from the crown of Morgoth.

I don't think Tolkien can be used as an apologetic for anything. As he always said it is applicable but not allegory. However I really find it a bit of stretch to say LOTR shows how it's good to have kings and state religions when all the evils in all of Middle Earth began because someone wanted to be king or a king actually did something incredibly stupid. But everyone takes something different from  Tolkien which is what is so great about his work. But it is a tough sell for me anyways.



Christopher Hitchens is a fluke! He knows nothing! What he tried to do with Mother Teresa and the Civil rights movement was horrendous. He corrupts anything he touches! He knows nothing about Church History! It is an insult to even say such a thing!

Also, there is nothing wrong in vindicating Church history, especially when the other side gets it wrong. Or seriously distort it because of their bias. You don't call what the New Atheists do "spin", but you are quick to call what apologists do as "spin". You are quick to call any attempt at defending Church history as "revisionism" but you will not call the attacks of what the new atheists do as "revisionism". You seem to be heavily bent on their side.....as if they can do no wrong. You make it seem as if everything they say must automatically be right and any attempt to rebut them is nothing more than "spin" and a knee jerk reaction.

 Also, I don't think those who defend Church History are ignoring some of the evils that happened. Nor do I see it as a knee jerk reaction. I simply see it as setting the record straight! It is true that we should be great full  for some of the things that happened in the past! And yes it is a two edge sword.

Not only can one find bad things about the Crusades, but they can also find alot of good as well. Alot of things that the modern western world ultimately benefited from.

And so the same is true in regards to the Emperor Constantine! I personally feel that he did more good than bad. Especially when you look at the Emperors before him.



Also, when it comes to the numbers game of only 2,000 here or 10's of thousands there, it is very important to point out. It's important because it puts things in it's proper perspective and context. What the Atheists and other secularists of the 19th and 20th centuries did was far worse. Far Far worse, but nobody wants to talk about those numbers! No one wants to call what they did evil. Instead we hush it up and pretend as if it never happened. It is as if any evil done by Atheists must be ignored, down played, or explained away. And people think it's fine when they do it, but for some reason, some think it's not ok for Christians to defend their own history.

« Last Edit: December 14, 2010, 09:22:17 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/
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,697



WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 14, 2010, 10:43:37 PM »


I personally don't buy into this new movement in Christian apologetics which essentially is claiming that Church basically never did anything wrong, ever and if you don't like that claim, well just be grateful the Church rescued civilization out of (fill in the blank) otherwise you wouldn't be hear to question this new apologetic to begin with. That's how I read and have heard this new apologetic for the last couple of years. It comes off as smug and arrogant not to mention it isn't honest about history.

Wow, I had somewhat forgotten/not realized this. You are right it is a huge easy pitfall. And easy for converts to fall into. You find that the church is the early church something people don't know about, and you want to view its history as perfect 100%.

It is a serious temptation I have, but I have to recognize that my personal view should be different.

So for example, it is easy to idealize the reign of the canonized Tsar Nicholas II, without paying attention to how to Tsar allowed Rasputin to partly control Church and state leadership.

A social critique is in order too. The previous centuries, the Church often backed the government's actions, and as we know from King Herod's time in Judea, the government's actions aren't always perfect. Plus, there were cases of the church owning serfs or of owning tons of land and hiring farmworkers at low wages.

I read one commentary by an Orthodox scholar or saint, where he felt that in some Byzantine times, the Church was too strong and worldly (in ways that tended in the direction of the medeival RC Church), but that the church turned from this (perhaps referring to the Turkish occupations) and became better.



Quote
Now, as for LOTR...don't get me started....LOL!  I think using LOTR and Tolkien as a defense of war, having kings to rule us and the like is beyond ironic. I'm not sure what this fellow was thinking?


hehe
Logged
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #7 on: December 15, 2010, 12:18:26 PM »


Christopher Hitchens is a fluke! He knows nothing! What he tried to do with Mother Teresa and the Civil rights movement was horrendous. He corrupts anything he touches! He knows nothing about Church History! It is an insult to even say such a thing!

I'm sorry you're offended, but Hitchens is quite well versed in Church history.  He's probably the only one of the New Atheists that actually knows anything about Church history. As for the Mother Teresa thing, well the Catholic Church used to have a devil's advocate roll which I think Pope John Paul II abolished as an official roll within the Catholic Church, however the Catholic Church DID bring in Hitchens to play the roll in an unofficial capacity. So I'm not sure why that issue was even brought up.


Quote

Also, there is nothing wrong in vindicating Church history, especially when the other side gets it wrong.

Yes, but when the defense also is getting it wrong what good is the defense?

Quote
You don't call what the New Atheists do "spin", but you are quick to call what apologists do as "spin".

I assumed it was implicit in my post that both sides do a lot of spinning. That was kind of my point that a lot of these new apologists do exactly the same thing that the New Atheists do, only in defense of Church history. If that wasn't clear it's my bad. Sorry for not being more clear.


Quote
Also, I don't think those who defend Church History are ignoring some of the evils that happened. Nor do I see it as a knee jerk reaction. I simply see it as setting the record straight!

How are these new apologetics in defense of Church history "setting the record straight?" What is going on is we have one side (the new Atheists) focusing only on the bad. in response Christians should be trying to balance out those harsh realities with focusing on the good, but instead this new breed of Church apologists are "spinning" the bad trying to convince everyone that it was all for our own good or wasn't that bad after all. The reason I'm harder at times on the apologists is because they are spinning history, where as generally speaking the new atheists are just focusing on some bad things and blowing them all out of proportion and context. Besides shouldn't Christians be holding themselves to a higher moral ground? just because they do it doesn't mean we have to.


Quote

And so the same is true in regards to the Emperor Constantine! I personally feel that he did more good than bad. Especially when you look at the Emperors before him.

I actually agree that Constantine was far better than the maniacs who would have taken over had he lost the civil war. I've even argued that elsewhere on this forum just this week. I just do not like spinning history or trying to convince everyone the burning of heretics (or whatever it may be) was actually a good thing. The Church and Christianity did do so much good that why not use those things to counter argue critics, instead of saying, "it's good for you that the Church did evil things!" The Church is better than arguing at such a low level IMO.


Quote
Also, when it comes to the numbers game of only 2,000 here or 10's of thousands there, it is very important to point out. It's important because it puts things in it's proper perspective and context.


But it doesn't put it in context. When people like D'souza say only 19 people were hunted down and killed as witches he is at best deliberately leaving out the fact that the witch hunts took place in Europe for hundreds of years before the Salem witch trial which is where he gets his low statistic from. He doesn't put it in context, he strips it out of any context whatsoever which is just as bad, if not worse than what the new atheists do. (BTW I'm not trying to start an anti D'Souza rant, I do like the guy, have learned much from him and he is not the only one who uses this argument, but the argument I simply find ridiculous)

with the numbers for the inquisition; even if for argument's sake the number is as a low as 2000 KILLED, the apologist completely ignores that the horror of the inquisition lasted 100's of years, and tens of thousands suffered in one way or another through torture, confiscation of property, exile from ancestral lands, hunting down of family members, shunning by the community and excommunication. Yes the number is technically correct, but these new apologists make it sound like the whole thing was a minor event one sunday afternoon, when it fact the new atheists are much closer to the truth; that the inquisition was a living nightmare for those caught in it's path. Even Pope John Paul II said as much and apologized for it, so I find it bizarre that this new breed of apologists are essentially denying what he admitted. (D'Souza is a Catholic as well, so the whole thing is really weird)

Quote
What the Atheists and other secularists of the 19th and 20th centuries did was far worse.

You mean like creating modern democracies, founding the United States, abolishing slavery, those kinds of things?


Quote
Far Far worse, but nobody wants to talk about those numbers!


we can talk about that but in another thread. This thread is about an apologetic FOR kingdoms and serfdom where the king rules and us poor peasants need to be grateful for that. The thing that I find frustrating is that in some ways these new apologists make some good points, but I still say they are doing what the new atheists are doing, spinning history to fit in with some party line. The Church should be above that and it in fact did so much good for civilization why not focus all the real contributions instead of trying to convince people the bad things were really just for our own good?





« Last Edit: December 15, 2010, 12:22:57 PM by NorthernPines » Logged
CRCulver
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 15, 2010, 01:06:21 PM »

I just do not like spinning history or trying to convince everyone the burning of heretics (or whatever it may be) was actually a good thing.

For a ruler to encourage Christian belief on pain of death is a good thing, and the Church has spoken. For example, St. Vladimir the Great was canonized mainly for driving his people into a freezing river for baptism and threatening to execute anyone who held back -- the Orthodox Church still re-enacts the baptism of Kyiv every January. This is Orthodox belief, stop denying it or treating it as something shameful.
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 15, 2010, 01:18:08 PM »

I just do not like spinning history or trying to convince everyone the burning of heretics (or whatever it may be) was actually a good thing.

For a ruler to encourage Christian belief on pain of death is a good thing....
By "ruler", you don't mean a ruler, leader, or president of a society with church-state separation, like the U.S., right?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,677


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #10 on: December 15, 2010, 01:46:48 PM »

I just do not like spinning history or trying to convince everyone the burning of heretics (or whatever it may be) was actually a good thing.

For a ruler to encourage Christian belief on pain of death is a good thing, and the Church has spoken. For example, St. Vladimir the Great was canonized mainly for driving his people into a freezing river for baptism and threatening to execute anyone who held back -- the Orthodox Church still re-enacts the baptism of Kyiv every January. This is Orthodox belief, stop denying it or treating it as something shameful.

It's an Orthodox belief to shove and force people into a freezing river for baptism and kill them if they held back?  That sounds no different than radical Islam!  If that's what your Orthodox Church holds as "belief," I am going to declare that your St. Vladimir is the great Satan.  He makes you know who look good.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2010, 01:48:25 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 15, 2010, 01:48:13 PM »

I just do not like spinning history or trying to convince everyone the burning of heretics (or whatever it may be) was actually a good thing.

For a ruler to encourage Christian belief on pain of death is a good thing, and the Church has spoken. For example, St. Vladimir the Great was canonized mainly for driving his people into a freezing river for baptism and threatening to execute anyone who held back -- the Orthodox Church still re-enacts the baptism of Kyiv every January. This is Orthodox belief, stop denying it or treating it as something shameful.

It's an Orthodox belief to shove and force people into a freezing river for baptism and kill them if they held back?  That sounds no different than Islam!  If that's what your Orthodox Church holds as "belief," I am going to declare that your St. Vladimir is the great Satan.  He makes Mohamed look good.
I think that the key word is 'threaten'. St. Vladimir threatened to kill people. He actually wasn't go to do it -- or so I hope. Shocked
« Last Edit: December 15, 2010, 01:48:36 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
CRCulver
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 15, 2010, 01:51:38 PM »

For a ruler to encourage Christian belief on pain of death is a good thing....

I don't know about modern societies, but the acts of the Church during the medieval period have in many cases become Holy Tradition and it's silly to pretend they were mistakes of some sort.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,677


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #13 on: December 15, 2010, 01:53:22 PM »

For a ruler to encourage Christian belief on pain of death is a good thing....

I don't know about modern societies, but the acts of the Church during the medieval period have in many cases become Holy Tradition and it's silly to pretend they were mistakes of some sort.

Truly if that's the thought of Russian Orthodox Christians, they deserve the Communist regime.

This is one of the most disgusting, anti-Christian garbage I've ever read in my life.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2010, 01:54:03 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Tags:
Pages: 1   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 0.099 seconds with 42 queries.