OP please stop bossing us around!
as stated I prefer to interpret the bible in an accurate and literal sense. literal as in not a myth.
the point you made is still relevent to those who agree with my point of view, but I thought that since even other EO members disagree with you then maybe its worth pointing out.
is your view strictly literal? so does that mean you hold the revelations in a literal sense? if yes, then why are you having this conversation, stick to your belief, but only know that it lacks grace! if no then we can discuss things:
firstly- if you don't hold the Biblical verses in a literal sense all the time, do you use your own discretion to decide on whether a passage is literal or allegorical?
secondly- do you subscribe to the interpretation of the early church fathers, or only your own?
lets pull this ALL the way back to my OP.
should i take this to mean that you take the Bible literally in every instance? if so, conversation ends here for me!
I trust these people as much as the people who wrote the he/she bible. they talk about the Father/Mother, the Son/Daughter, and the holy asexual spirit.
what does that mean? why are you capitalising Mother and Daughter? the capitalized form is appropriate to the first and second persons of the trinity...
according to other Orthodox Christians on this thread the Catholic Church, and I quote, "WENT INTO HERESY and hetropraxis".
herein collapses your literalism! when we talk about Catholic Church we refer to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which IS THE ORTHODOX CHURCH!
the Catholic Church does not have hegemony over that term; furthermore their application of the term in description of themselves is simply WRONG because they fell into heresy!
Catholic merely means Universal, as the Orthodox church is the ONLY church, it is the Universal Church!
the Roman Catholic Church is a different thing.
its all well and good for you to use historical events as evidence. but there where as many deluded people back then as there are today.
if we use Oral tradition as passed down from the Apostles, is that enough?
are the Apostles included in your "deluded" frame of things? Is the Holy Virgin Mary?
actually there was less delusion, as you must know, there was less chance of confusion and delusion due to the smaller timeframe of events since the ascension of Christ. the smaller timeframe allowed less time for "delusion" to occur.
i agree there were "deluded" men in ancient times. however, to compare the degree of "delusion" of the ancient church to today's fractioned, numerous and more often than not heretical protestantism is simply Historiographical injustice!
and on the subject of Lust.
once you lot have agreed upon a definition then I will address the issue.
or even two definitions if there is a split amongst you.
if you cared to read beyond "i disagree" you will find that Quinault and I share the same view (at least i hope that i share his, because i agree with it).
I believe Lust=sexual desire
. However, through the mystery of Marriage sexual desire between the married couple is sanctified and given a context in which it is to operate in a Godly way. so that it is no longer lust! this allows a context in which sexual desire is not sinful. outside this context , sexual desire is nothing but lust as it is a passion not sanctified by the holy spirit through matrimony. and as you agree that lust is a sin, that leads to the conclusion that if my original statement is true, then premarital sex is a sin. please show me why original statement is not true....
also i am still waiting for you to address reply #128!