OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 22, 2014, 07:53:31 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Premarital Sex Is Not a Sin?  (Read 55074 times) Average Rating: 1
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #675 on: November 10, 2011, 03:08:08 AM »

quote]if the large portions of the Bible where lost for hundereds of years. then how could one use the apostolic fathers to make clear the teachings of the Apostels if you did not even have access the the new testament to begin with?
Because when reading the Apostolic Fathers do we have a better understanding of the New Testament, because of the tradition that was passed down by the Apostles. Just because there wasn't a NT canon established during the Apostolic Father period until much later in Church history doesn't mean the Fathers weren't aware of what the Apostles were preaching and teaching. So once the 27 books were selected, they must be in line with the tradition that has been passed down.

How else do you think the books were even selected?
« Last Edit: November 10, 2011, 03:08:39 AM by Achronos » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
just_some_guy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 33


« Reply #676 on: November 10, 2011, 03:57:02 AM »

Quote
Quote
just_some_guy
that was really uninteresting by the end. to be honest.
Noted. Learning about the Orthodox mindset is boring. No wonder you're such a smash hit around here.
originally it was quite interesting, and I wrote up notes for my responce as I went. by the end the notes went from "quite an interesting listen" to "that was really uninteresting by the end".
didn't actually mean offence, just being honest with you.

Quote
The point is that it is really less about empty (content-less) moralizing, and more about what it means to be a child of God.[...] I'm pretty sure that was in the podcast, too, and it's a real shame you missed it.
I didn't miss this quote from the pod cast:
Quote
natural law is there, there is no doubt about it. but our Anthropology, Our theology is not grounded in natural law. its grounded in something deeper. its grounded in the awareness the the risen Christ. who he is. we believe that this can be comprehended and known.in one of the monographs we are going to publish in the next three months on gay marrage doctor Vegen Guree touches on this point. he says that natural theology is good, but the Orthodox theology can bring foreward something deeper. and thats how I see that we [Orthodox vs other denominations] differ
can I give you concrete specifics at this point. I really can't, yet. I really can't.because I don't think its been done- frankly. I think we intuit that it needs to be done, but I don't think wev'e engaged this deeper question. exspecially the Anthropological question in any way thats been compelling yet
so even he says the Orthodox Church pulls up short on the Anthropological question.  police



Quote
PeterTheAleut: We don't believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all just different facets of God. We believe that the three distinct persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are God
the reason we are discussing the trinity is because you state if I belive in the Trinity then I should also believe in not having premarital sex.
I have stated that I disagree with the Churches point of view about premarital sex, And I have stated that I do not see the 'Trinity' in quite the same way you do.
AND at the same time, even You state the trinity "is contradicted by the majority of the old testament". so why would I see it the way the Orthodox Church sees it?
so, in my opinion, this Trinity facet of the debate is not likely to bear any fruit.



Quote
akimori makoto: You will find, however, that all the evidence points to the fact that the earliest Christians who wrote anything down understood "porneia" to include extra-marital sex.
the irony is, the said evidence is what I am after.

Quote
I do not believe, however, that the proper remedy is to reinterpret the Scriptures in a way that is totally unfaithful to their authors
in case you didn't realise, from my point of view it is the Church that has reinterpreted the Scriptures. But I do agree with your comment.

Quote
Cavaradossi: I think that to assume that the Greek speaking world has, for over a millennium, been too benighted to figure out whether porneia had undergone some sort of semantic change since the time of the Gospels is a rather untenable position.
I did not say the word swoped meaning the way my examples did. I simply mean that, somewhere along the line, premarital sex was added to the list of "sexual immoralitys".
and may I point out that prehaps they have figured out that proneia has undergone semantic change. remember those blonde and blue eyed scholars...?



Quote
Melodist: Was Jesus ever corrected for having a misunderstanding of human sexuality and it's place in marriage?
and as far as Im aware, he was never quoted as saying fornication was a sin either.

Quote
Virtus_lb: Paul clearly calls any sex outside of marriage
you make a big claim. but can you back it up?  where does Paul say this?


Quote
NicholasMyra: Anathema does not mean eternally damned, despite what NIV translators and LARPers would have you believe.
so Porneia is not the only greek word with contested translations ^_^



@ Virtus_lb
you probly don't care much about my point of view, seeing as I fit into the catigory of "false Christians" you descrided. however:
If you believe in 'your view' of Christianity, even if it is different to the 'view' of 95% of the population. Don't give up on it just because of peer pressure to change views. and Definetly don't give up on it because the local Church isn't supporting you the way you think it should.
stand up for what you believe in. even if your standing alone.
[/u]
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,470


« Reply #677 on: November 10, 2011, 05:26:32 AM »

in case you didn't realise, from my point of view it is the Church that has reinterpreted the Scriptures.

The Church wrote the Bible.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #678 on: November 10, 2011, 06:22:48 AM »

in case you didn't realise, from my point of view it is the Church that has reinterpreted the Scriptures.

The Church wrote the Bible.
This is entirely the crux of the matter. As long as JSG rallies his view from a biblical standpoint, he forgets who wrote the Bible, who correctly interprets the Bible, and who the Bible is essentially for: The Church.

Let's go through this again: God ->The Church->The Bible, not God->The Bible->The Church.

The Bible outside of it's correct context, which is the Church, has aboslutlely no validility whatsoever. More so itself has no authority or foundation on anything.

The Bible itself, without the Church, practically exhibits a logical fallacy, that of begging the quesiton. "The Bible is true." "But how do you know the Bible is true?" "Because the Bible proves itself to be true". Or better yet, look at the New Testament compared to "apocryphal" gospel documents, how the hell were only four Gospels ever selected? How do you answer that? That's just another form of begging the question.

The main issue here is JSG doesn't trust the Orthodox Church. And I don't necessarily blame him considering how fragmented Christianity is, can the Church even be trusted? You gotta love the Schism of 1054 (I know that ain't the actual date, but for the sake of the argument) and how the ramifications of it would put serious doubts into any sort of Church authority. Hell I can't even convince my mother, a former RC, to trust in the Church when she says no Church can be trusted. And it's all because events like the Great Schism.

I always wondered why God had to make discovering the truth was so damn difficult. Or maybe if someone honestly searches for truth they will find it, I dunno I haven't completetly rationalized that bit yet, maybe it can't.

If anything we would have to convince JSG on why the Church should be trusted and why it has the authority to say what it can. Until we can successfully do that, this debate is fruitless.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2011, 06:26:53 AM by Achronos » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Virtus_lb
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic, Admirer of Theology.
Posts: 42


« Reply #679 on: November 10, 2011, 07:48:37 AM »

Quote
@ Virtus_lb
you probly don't care much about my point of view, seeing as I fit into the catigory of "false Christians" you descrided. however:
If you believe in 'your view' of Christianity, even if it is different to the 'view' of 95% of the population. Don't give up on it just because of peer pressure to change views. and Definetly don't give up on it because the local Church isn't supporting you the way you think it should.
stand up for what you believe in. even if your standing alone.
[/u]

Dude listen, the word porneia doesn't mean fornication, if you have read my posts, you would have seen it there.

But look how Paul interprets it:

Read 1 Corinthians Chapter 7:

1. And concerning the things of which ye wrote to me: good it is for a man not to touch a woman,

2. and because of the immoralities(porneias) let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her proper husband;

There are many verses that make it clear how Paul interprets this word.

Scientifically, it's true that porneia doesn't mean 'sex before marriage', but Paul says it's a sin to have it.

Paul says that sexual deprivation may cause immorality, thus they should marry. Now does he mean it causes sex before marriage or rape? I think he means sex before marriage.

« Last Edit: November 10, 2011, 07:58:54 AM by Virtus_lb » Logged
Timon
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,490



« Reply #680 on: November 10, 2011, 12:44:08 PM »

If you have already decided that you disagree with the Church's view of this topic, what are you still doing here?

Go chase some tail!
Logged

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

— Chrysostom

BLOG
Timon
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,490



« Reply #681 on: November 10, 2011, 12:47:16 PM »

The original poster has raised an interesting question.  However, there is still one more question that desperately needs to be answered...

We understand the OP wants to have premarital sex, but, does anybody actually want to have premarital sex with him??

If the answer to the second question is "no" then we are all wasting our time here.
Logged

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

— Chrysostom

BLOG
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #682 on: November 10, 2011, 12:59:04 PM »

The original poster has raised an interesting question.  However, there is still one more question that desperately needs to be answered...

We understand the OP wants to have premarital sex, but, does anybody actually want to have premarital sex with him??

If the answer to the second question is "no" then we are all wasting our time here.

Dealt with in reply #210 several pages back. Grin
Logged

Timon
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,490



« Reply #683 on: November 10, 2011, 01:13:40 PM »

The original poster has raised an interesting question.  However, there is still one more question that desperately needs to be answered...

We understand the OP wants to have premarital sex, but, does anybody actually want to have premarital sex with him??

If the answer to the second question is "no" then we are all wasting our time here.

Dealt with in reply #210 several pages back. Grin

haha. good!

no way I was going to go back and read this whole thing...
Logged

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

— Chrysostom

BLOG
just_some_guy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 33


« Reply #684 on: November 13, 2011, 06:36:36 AM »

Quote
Michał KalinaThe Church wrote the Bible.
I gave this point a few days thought / research. here is the end result:

at the dawn of time there was Adam and Eve who would talk directly to God, Face to face.
later along in history there where many other people who would talk to God, but via prayer / shouting at the heavens. with the occasional visitation of Angles and meaningful dreams.
even further on in history, in addition to the methods of conversation mentioned above, there was Jesus. Jesus would talk on behalf of God directly to the masses. thus another form of communication was opened up.
however, throughout all this time, with the soul exception of Moses and the Ten Commandments, God did not give us anything in writting. it was all passed down to us from word of mouth.
we have now established that God did not write the Bible.

between the Dawn of time and 1546AD(the council of Trent), there has been a multitude of christian based literature produced.
these have been in the form of; autobiography's, letters, educational books, diary's, novels, etc.
these have been written by; Church heads, scholars, students, noblemen, women (a big deal back then), peasants, etc. the majority of which where 'followers of Christ' (aka Christian). But the Point is that they are NOT 'the Church'. they may be individual members of the Church, but the Church as an organised Body did NOT write the Bible

OK, now for the big bit.
it WAS the Church who decided on what books to be included in the Bible canon. on what books to be 'read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures'. as follows:
  • ~450's BC. The Torah (1st five books) was written in its current form in the by Ezra.
  • ~148 BC. The Septuagint was translated from the Greek language in Egypt. But I am not sure by who.
  • ~382 AD. the Council of Rome. prompted by the Holy Spirit, Pope St. Damascus I issued a decree appropriately called, "The Decree of Damascus", in which he listed the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments. Old Testament of 46 books, which were all in the Septuagint, and a New Testament of 27 books. 73 Books in total
  • 397 AD. The Council of Carthage. The list of 46 Old Testament and 27 New Testament books was reconfirmed
  • 393 AD. The Council of Hippo. reaffirmed the canon put forth by Pope Damascus I
  • 397 AD. The Third Council of Carthage. reaffirmed the canon put forth by Pope Damascus I...
  • 419 AD. The Fourth Council of Carthage. reaffirmed the canon put forth by Pope Damascus I... again
  • 1431-1445 AD. The Council of Florence, also called Basel. reaffirmed the canon put forth by Pope Damascus I... again
  • 1546-1565 AD. The Council of Trent, the longest running Council in Church history. reaffirmed the canon of all 46 books of the Old Testament and 27 New Testament books. The Protestants, however, their Old Testament differs because it does not contain the books rejected by the rabbis at Jamnia, and much later, rejected by Martin Luther.


so in conclusion. the Church did NOT write the Bible. but it DID hold the councils that chose witch books were to be included in the Bible Canon. (possibly what you meant in the first place)

AND
if historical accounts are correct at all (I personally I have no reason to believe otherwise), then at both the Council of Rome and the Council of Trent, and all the Councils in between, the Books that where to be included in the Biblical Canon where not agreed apon unless there was a visitation of the Holy Spriit.
in other words: dispite the fact that The Church organised and ran the Councils that where to decide the Biblical Canon, it was God Himself (via the holy spirit) who gave the final tick of approval.


so this both counters your statement that "the Church wrote the Bible" and also supports my views that Bible is the best reference point for all things Christian... Because it is personally endorced by God himself.


Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,470


« Reply #685 on: November 13, 2011, 07:40:08 AM »

You won't gain much here mentioning Florence or Trent.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #686 on: November 13, 2011, 08:48:45 AM »

so this both counters your statement that "the Church wrote the Bible" and also supports my views that Bible is the best reference point for all things Christian... Because it is personally endorced by God himself.

A few things:

1) The Council of Florence and Trent are post Great Schism between the East and the West. Therefore, mentioning those Councils to a bunch of Eastern Orthodox is... funny. Cheesy
2) Saying "the Church wrote the Bible" means not that the Church made some commissioning for it's creation, but that the scripture is both contained from the Church's beginnings, as well as, grew out of it's history and Tradition
3) The Orthodox (EO and OO, alike) still don't necessarily agree on all the books that are contained in the Bible. The Didache was a one point considered part of the Bible, even. Only the Roman Church has definitively defined the books.
4) The Catholics and Orthodox agree more on whats in the Bible than Protestants. If you accept the Bible of the Protestants, you'll notice your book is much lighter.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Virtus_lb
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic, Admirer of Theology.
Posts: 42


« Reply #687 on: November 13, 2011, 08:57:06 AM »

just_some_guy

Well, what you mean "Church wrote the bible", there were people who wrote the letters and the 4 gospels, traditionally St. Paul and Christ's Apostles.

But the canonical books were known before those Church Councils.

Tatian's Diatessaron, harmony of four gospels, was written in second century. St. Ignatius of Antioch quoted Paul's letters in I century. Just look through the tradition and you will see that Church knew which were authentic before the councils even happened.

But for example "Wisdom of Jeshua, son of Sirach" - was accepted as canon in first few centuries, while Revelation wasn't. These are later modifications of canons.
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #688 on: November 13, 2011, 09:05:49 AM »

so this both counters your statement that "the Church wrote the Bible"

But does assert that it is the Church that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, declares what is considered scripture, which is what you have outlined your history (inclusion of the OT books found in the LXX).

Quote
and also supports my views that Bible is the best reference point for all things Christian...

Best or not, it is still not the only reference point. Try finding your location on a map using only one point of reference and not knowing your distance or what direction you are from it.

Quote
Because it is personally endorced by God himself.

So are our bishops (2Tim 1:6).
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
W.A.Mozart
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: Eschaton
Posts: 496


Lazare, veni foras!


« Reply #689 on: November 19, 2011, 07:59:09 PM »

Logged

completely new, especially not yet used
just_some_guy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 33


« Reply #690 on: November 19, 2011, 10:00:41 PM »

Quote
Michał Kalina: You won't gain much here mentioning Florence or Trent.
Quote
Aindriú: 1) The Council of Florence and Trent are post Great Schism between the East and the West. Therefore, mentioning those Councils to a bunch of Eastern Orthodox is... funny.
OK, so I understand that part that these Councils are 'post Great Schism between the East and the West', so there fore followers are automatically against anything they say.
but why?

I mean, as far as the Biblical Canon goes, they agree with what was said in the previous Councils! I am not sure what else was decided upon during those councils, but they agree with the canon put forth by Pope Damascus I which was my point in mentioning the Council of Florence and Trent.

even if I never mentioned Florence or Trent, the Bible Canon is still the same, therefore my argument is still the same. therefore I think you should go back and reread it with this in mind.


Quote
2) Saying "the Church wrote the Bible" means not that the Church made some commissioning for it's creation, but that the scripture is both contained from the Church's beginnings, as well as, grew out of it's history and Tradition
I know I got criticised last time I asked for an elaboration, but you will have to be a little more clear in what this implies.
also more detail on how the Bible "grew out of it's [the Churches] history and Tradition" would be good. because, although I can think of some explanations of this comment, I can't think of any way this proves I should follow the teachings of the Church blindly.

Quote
3) The Orthodox (EO and OO, alike) still don't necessarily agree on all the books that are contained in the Bible. The Didache was a one point considered part of the Bible, even. Only the Roman Church has definitively defined the books.
even if it was through the most evil Devil cult you could possibly imagine, if God endorsed the Books then who cares what organisation publishes them.

Quote
Aindriú: 4) The Catholics and Orthodox agree more on whats in the Bible than Protestants. If you accept the Bible of the Protestants, you'll notice your book is much lighter.
Quote
just_some_guy: The Protestants, however, their Old Testament differs because it does not contain the books rejected by the rabbis at Jamnia, and much later, rejected by Martin Luther.
yes. I know.



Quote
Virtus_lb:
But the canonical books were known before those Church Councils.

Tatian's Diatessaron, harmony of four gospels, was written in second century. St. Ignatius of Antioch quoted Paul's letters in I century. Just look through the tradition and you will see that Church knew which were authentic before the councils even happened.

But for example "Wisdom of Jeshua, son of Sirach" - was accepted as canon in first few centuries, while Revelation wasn't. These are later modifications of canons.
so in a nushell: in all the literature of the pre- Church Councils, some contained references to the canonical books, some didn't, and some claimed to, but still didn't.
how very informative



Quote
Quote
so this both counters your statement that "the Church wrote the Bible"
Melodist: But does assert that it is the Church that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, declares what is considered scripture, which is what you have outlined your history (inclusion of the OT books found in the LXX).
yes. I have already acknowledged this fact
Quote
just_some_guy: so in conclusion. the Church did NOT write the Bible. but it DID hold the councils that chose witch books were to be included in the Bible Canon. (possibly what you meant in the first place)

Quote
Quote
and also supports my views that Bible is the best reference point for all things Christian...
Melodist: Best or not, it is still not the only reference point.
yes. I could also ask the Church.
read below to see why I usually don't.

Quote
Quote
Because it is personally endorsed by God himself.
Melodist:
So are our bishops (2Tim 1:6).
Quote
2Tim 1:6
For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands.
does not go into detail about who Timothy is talking about. but given the context it is safe to assume that he is talking about those who spread the word of God, or "fan the flame" as he put it. so I agree with your assessment that this is in reference to Bishops, Pastors, Padrays, Preachers etc.
but then we look into who is really spreading the word of God, and who is only claiming to. take the Pope for instance. he claims to be spread the word of God (and he is). but he is also spreading corrupted and warped 'traditions' along with it.
yes, the Catholic 'traditions' are different to your 'traditions', no argument there. and I know you believe your 'traditions' to still be pure. but how can I be so sure?
Logged
just_some_guy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 33


« Reply #691 on: November 19, 2011, 10:11:25 PM »

it has come to my attention that my responces are becoming spaced further and further apart. an indication that this thread if coming to a close.

but there are still a few loose ends that need to be dealt with before we close this thread for good. first and foremost is the question "why are you here?". I believe I have already answered this many times before, but this time I will go into great detail. hopefully this is a sufficient answer:

shortly after my 21st birth day, my immediate peers asked a lot of questions about my virginity. these questions where nothing new, but due to the circumstances the concentration of questions was higher than normal.
it is because of this that I decided to look deeper into the 'premarital sex' issue. so as to better arm my self with understanding of why it is wrong. so I hopped on to the internet and Googled "where Bible premarital sex"

what I expected to find was a list of versus that outlined why premarital sex is wrong. instead I found a list of sites that argued that premarital sex is not wrong. I read a few and realised that they presented a good case.
However, I still had my doubts. I was torn bettween the teachings I grew up with and the information I just read on the internet. so I decide to find clarification.

first thing I did was Google "where Bible premarital sex forum", so as to try and find where others had asked the same questions. however the results where limited. in fact most of the sites where simply one side or the other propagating their point of view, with little if any consideration to the opposing point of view. so I decided to start my own thread on a Christian based site. hence I came here.

in all honesty I when I came here I was expecting, even hoping, that premarital sex would be proved sinful. this way my upbringing would not seem missguided, and it would leave my decisions about the future very clear. however I could not Just roll over to the first comment any more than I could believe in what the pro-premarital sex sites said without question. so I made the decision that if I was to come to a fair and balanced decision I would need to hear both sides.
of course on a Christian forum where, as you would expect, only Christians visit meant that hearing "both sides" would be somewhat difficult. so I made the logical decision to play 'Devils advocate'. by arguing for premarital sex, while everyone else argued against it, this gave the debate its balance.
as commented on more than once, it also gave you the impression that I "had already made up my mind about the issue". witch I can definitively tell you was not the case.

and so started this thread.
at the very start of this thread, when I created an account just so as to present the tread, the thread got lost in the process, this annoyed me. and when I remade the tread it was then posted into the wrong category, this annoyed the Admin staff. and the thread itself was on a question that had been asked before about a topic that is clearly against Orthodox teachings, this annoyed everyone else.
so this thread started off badly. and continued badly for some time. however throughout this we did make some progress.

that explains why I started the tread, but why did I stay?
there are a few reasons for this: firstly, because I was undecided on the issue. despite what impression you may have got from my postings, I was still struggling with the choice of whether or not premarital sex is a sin.
secondly, Because I hadn't finished. I am not the sort of person who gives up just because things aren't going my way. this ties in with my first reason, because I wanted to know the answer. But it also ties in with my third reason: because I like debating. its not because I feel big about myself when I shoot others down (although I'm sure that is part of it). but it is because I like the challenge, even if it results in loosing the argument.

Now that I have ticked off curiocity, honor and pride (respectively), why did I stay? even when I felt your arguments limited, your reasoning flawed, and you debate style, for lack of a better description, un-gentlemen like? to put it simply, I did not see this thread as a lost cause. we where still making progress. and the end result was worth the hardship.
don't get me wrong, despite me being the main person to keep this thread focused, and having my all my arguments based on logic instead of tradition (a big thing in my books). I still acknowledge that fact that there are times I was "un-gentlemen like". or should I say: rude, stubborn, egocentric, and in some cases even naive.
I should acknowledge the fact that You had to put up with my shortfalls as much as I had to put up with yours. so thank you for your patience in that regard.

so what now?
we have now fully established that followers of the Orthodox Church believe that the traditions of the Church have as much importance as the Bible. so therefor when the Church says "premarital sex is a sin", that is good enough for you.
however we have also established that it is not good enough for me. because I see the Orthodox Church as just another denomination, and seeing the major differences between many of the denominations, it is impossible for me to believe one denomination over another. or even believe any of the denominations about anything that they can't back up from the Bible.
we have also established that the Bible has been agreed upon as holy scripture for many hundreds of years, reaffirmed 6 times by the Church, and is endorsed by God himself.
so, because of our fundamental differences in our entire belief systems, let alone individual points of view, we are simply at odds with eachother.


it is because of this that there isn't much point in continuing this tread. we have made some progress into non-Church based reasoning. but I am unsure about you willingness or your ability to continue down that road. I am by no means closing this thread yet, I am still both willing and eager to hear more counter arguments, however I am stating what many of us are thinking. this Thread is (almost) over.

this concludes my answer to "why am I here?". however I don't think that is the last 'loose end' that should be dealt with.
if you have anything else to put forward, or even re-post questions that did not get answered satisfactory (if at all), then I will still be around for a while yet.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #692 on: November 19, 2011, 11:20:44 PM »

Quote
Michał Kalina: You won't gain much here mentioning Florence or Trent.
Quote
Aindriú: 1) The Council of Florence and Trent are post Great Schism between the East and the West. Therefore, mentioning those Councils to a bunch of Eastern Orthodox is... funny.
OK, so I understand that part that these Councils are 'post Great Schism between the East and the West', so there fore followers are automatically against anything they say.
but why?

I mean, as far as the Biblical Canon goes, they agree with what was said in the previous Councils! I am not sure what else was decided upon during those councils, but they agree with the canon put forth by Pope Damascus I which was my point in mentioning the Council of Florence and Trent.

even if I never mentioned Florence or Trent, the Bible Canon is still the same, therefore my argument is still the same. therefore I think you should go back and reread it with this in mind.

Here is a site on a general history of the New Testament canon. http://www.oodegr.com/english/ag_grafi/biblia.grafis1.htm

It isn't a matter of deciding what books are "in" "the Bible" per se. The Bible, as we understand it today didn't exist for the majority of Church history. What we had was a large collection of manuscripts and letters, many of which were recognized (see link) at different times, and unequally, as being either divinely inspired, if not merely containing the Truth of the Church.

Starting from early Christian history, the scripture available to Christian communities was the Old Testament and perhaps one of the Gospels. As time progressed, letters were written to neighboring communities by the Apostles (and later by bishops). Some of these letters and writings became more proliferated as their Truth was lauded. Attempts were made (see link) to determine which ones were contained a fullness of Truth. Agreements and disagreements were inevitable, however there was a general consensus.

This, however, still did not result in a "Bible". Even to this day, the scripture read in many Orthodox liturgies are separated for their particular use, and are not bound in a single "Bible". It wasn't until the Reformation and the Counter-reformation that the concept of the "Bible" as a single bound book, began to be common place. This developed mostly with the rejection of the Church as an institution, and the rise of the desire for personal-interpretation in the nature of God and the scriptures.

Long story short, the question you ask is nearly a category fallacy. At least, as I understood it.
Quote
2) Saying "the Church wrote the Bible" means not that the Church made some commissioning for it's creation, but that the scripture is both contained from the Church's beginnings, as well as, grew out of it's history and Tradition
I know I got criticised last time I asked for an elaboration, but you will have to be a little more clear in what this implies.
also more detail on how the Bible "grew out of it's [the Churches] history and Tradition" would be good. because, although I can think of some explanations of this comment, I can't think of any way this proves I should follow the teachings of the Church blindly.

Did the short description from above answer this?

Quote
3) The Orthodox (EO and OO, alike) still don't necessarily agree on all the books that are contained in the Bible. The Didache was a one point considered part of the Bible, even. Only the Roman Church has definitively defined the books.
even if it was through the most evil Devil cult you could possibly imagine, if God endorsed the Books then who cares what organisation publishes them.

Because for an Orthodox, the Roman church is 'outside' the Church. For an Orthodox, the Church isn't an amorphous body, but also a physical/real entity. To be outside the Church is to be outside the 'fullness of Truth'. Therefore, what care does a council from outside matter anymore than who won the World Series? The books may be holy, but the council is meaningless to Orthodox.

Logged


I'm going to need this.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,361


fleem
WWW
« Reply #693 on: November 20, 2011, 12:25:12 AM »

So he's here to curry justification for his own wants, because he feels bad about peer pressure.

This is a problem he needs to take up with his friends. They're not much to have around, if they make fun of him and don't respect him.

We all went through this time in our lives, but you have to accept the consequences of your actions. You're not going to change the opinion of the Church, just for what amuses you.

You'd have a better time yelling at a wall.
Logged

Charlie Rose: "If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?"

Fran Lebowitz: "Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #694 on: November 20, 2011, 12:34:59 AM »

it has come to my attention that my responces are becoming spaced further and further apart. an indication that this thread if coming to a close.

This thread should've lasted about 3 posts, not 7 pages.
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #695 on: November 20, 2011, 12:43:46 AM »

^^ laugh
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,470


« Reply #696 on: November 20, 2011, 10:08:03 AM »

in all honesty I when I came here I was expecting, even hoping, that premarital sex would be proved sinful. this way my upbringing would not seem missguided, and it would leave my decisions about the future very clear. however I could not Just roll over to the first comment any more than I could believe in what the pro-premarital sex sites said without question. so I made the decision that if I was to come to a fair and balanced decision I would need to hear both sides.
of course on a Christian forum where, as you would expect, only Christians visit meant that hearing "both sides" would be somewhat difficult. so I made the logical decision to play 'Devils advocate'. by arguing for premarital sex, while everyone else argued against it, this gave the debate its balance.

So you were defending the arguments you did not believe in just because you wanted to stir up the debate? There is a definition of that action.
Logged
just_some_guy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 33


« Reply #697 on: November 24, 2011, 03:31:11 AM »

Quote
Aindriú: Did the short description from above answer this?
not in the slightest

in fact I am more confused now than I was before. first you say I should follow the Orthodox Church because they wrote the Bible. now you say the Orthodox Church usually don't even use "the Bible", but rather the individual texts there in.

because I am not even sure what you are arguing along this approach, then I can neither agree or disagree. perhaps you should back track to where you said "the Church wrote the Bible" and try again.
because we have already gone over it once then you should have a better understanding of how I will respond, and therefore be able to word it in such a way that I can make sense of it


Quote
Because for an Orthodox, the Roman church is 'outside' the Church. For an Orthodox, the Church isn't an amorphous body, but also a physical/real entity. To be outside the Church is to be outside the 'fullness of Truth'. Therefore, what care does a council from outside matter anymore than who won the World Series? The books may be holy, but the council is meaningless to Orthodox.
I think I get this thou
its like I said "4 Church Councils and Rob from down the road agree on the Biblical Canon"
its not that Rob is wrong. its just that you don't see the opinion of Rob as any importance.
(although if Rob had a personal visitation from the Holy Spirit, I think that should count for something)



Quote
biro: This is a problem he needs to take up with his friends. They're not much to have around, if they make fun of him and don't respect him.
sounds like I gave you the wrong impressions about my friends. its not that 'they make fun of me and don't respect me', they simply live by a different value system and ask me questions about mine (witch is a Great opening for spreading the word  Wink )

Quote
biro:We all went through this time in our lives, but you have to accept the consequences of your actions. You're not going to change the opinion of the Church, just for what amuses you.
- I do accept the consequences of my actions. hence I am trying so hard to find out if the consequences are what the Church says they are.
- I am not trying to change the change the mind of the church. only trying to understand its point of view so as to compair it to other Facts, and then come up with an educated answer.



Quote
Cognomen: This thread should've lasted about 3 posts, not 7 pages
if I just rolled over when you said "because the church says so" then I can see how 3 posts would suffice.
unfortunately there are many people in the world who do not care in the slightest what the church says or does (not saying I am one of them. I personally at least take the Churches opinion into consideration). therefore, in order to convert more followers it IS necessary for you to give other reasons for following the teachings of the Church.



Quote
Michał Kalina: So you were defending the arguments you did not believe in just because you wanted to stir up the debate?
you say "stir up debate" because you still think my goal is to perpetuate this debate.
if you reread my post, I explain that my actions where what "gave the debate its balance". and my Goals where "to come to a fair and balanced decision"
so in a way, your statement is correct. BUT it gives the wrong impressions.
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #698 on: November 24, 2011, 05:25:18 AM »

therefore, in order to convert more followers it IS necessary for you to give other reasons for following the teachings of the Church.

I wouldn't personally use this topic as a means of evangelization.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #699 on: November 24, 2011, 01:39:37 PM »

Quote
2) Saying "the Church wrote the Bible" means not that the Church made some commissioning for it's creation, but that the scripture is both contained from the Church's beginnings, as well as, grew out of it's history and Tradition
I know I got criticised last time I asked for an elaboration, but you will have to be a little more clear in what this implies.
also more detail on how the Bible "grew out of it's [the Churches] history and Tradition" would be good. because, although I can think of some explanations of this comment, I can't think of any way this proves I should follow the teachings of the Church blindly.

Did the short description from above answer this?
not in the slightest

in fact I am more confused now than I was before. first you say I should follow the Orthodox Church because they wrote the Bible. now you say the Orthodox Church usually don't even use "the Bible", but rather the individual texts there in.

because I am not even sure what you are arguing along this approach, then I can neither agree or disagree. perhaps you should back track to where you said "the Church wrote the Bible" and try again.
because we have already gone over it once then you should have a better understanding of how I will respond, and therefore be able to word it in such a way that I can make sense of it

I'm trying to describe the same thing in different ways.

I earlier elaborated that the Bible arose out of the Church's Tradition. In this way, the Bible was "written" by the Church. That is, the Bible wasn't written by intent to create a Bible, but that it developed over time. First, as mere letters of guidance and recording. Then later identified for their content as divinely inspire and/or containing the "Truth". After those documents had been identified, they were collected as what we call the "Bible".

I mentioned the separation of the scripture in the Orthodox liturgies to illustrate that in some ways it has still not been combined into a single binding. It is the same scripture, however. Additionally, that is not to say that the Orthodox Church doesn't recognize a Bible.

Quote
in fact I am more confused now than I was before. first you say I should follow the Orthodox Church because they wrote the Bible

I'm saying that the Bible developed out of the Orthodox Church, and therefore the Church alone is capable of giving the correct teaching and interpretation of the scripture it contains.

Quote
Because for an Orthodox, the Roman church is 'outside' the Church. For an Orthodox, the Church isn't an amorphous body, but also a physical/real entity. To be outside the Church is to be outside the 'fullness of Truth'. Therefore, what care does a council from outside matter anymore than who won the World Series? The books may be holy, but the council is meaningless to Orthodox.
I think I get this thou
its like I said "4 Church Councils and Rob from down the road agree on the Biblical Canon"
its not that Rob is wrong. its just that you don't see the opinion of Rob as any importance.
(although if Rob had a personal visitation from the Holy Spirit, I think that should count for something)

Yes.

However, manifestations of God are personal. This is why we can't give definitive proof of God to another, and more that we can adequately/fully describe our emotions, thoughts, or experience.

The guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church is a trust/belief that God with protect the Truth it contains. Proof of this is the ability for the sheer number of Bishops, priests, and laity to agree on the same faith for 2,000 years. Even more so, the ability for disagreements to be reconciled. All between people who are emotionally attached to their belief.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #700 on: November 25, 2011, 01:59:31 AM »

Seriously. The attitude of the OP is astounding. And you expect some woman to sleep with you? And when she says no because you're an arrogant man-child, are you going to ask for scriptural evidence to justify her stance?

This is probably my all time favorite OC.net quote.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
just_some_guy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 33


« Reply #701 on: November 25, 2011, 08:13:47 AM »

Quote
I wouldn't personally use this topic as a means of evangelization.

its fine if you don't use this topic. but there should be someone in the church who does, so as to adress questions like the one I have presented.


Quote
I'm trying to describe the same thing in different ways.
dispite your efforts, I am sorry to say that the bottom line is still unclear to me. Note I said the bottom line is unclear, but not the individual points, I actually tend to agree with your individual points. how about I describe how I see things and then you can work off that:

Achronos said that, when the Books for the new Testament "were selected, they must be in line with the tradition that has been passed down" by the church. this I can understand.
ANY book, letter, Jurnal etc, that is selected as 'sacred text' by a religion must corrispond to that religion. we all agree so far

you, Aindriú said "the scripture is both contained from the Church's beginnings, as well as, grew out of it's history and Tradition"
there are two points here.

1) contained from the church's beginnings: I agree
all of the Old Testament was written before Jesus. (and any Church that existed before Jesus would have changed so dramaticly when Jesus came that we can say that the Church itself, as we know it today, didn't realy exist before Jesus)
or if you want to include the New Testament in that statement, then you will have to define the timeframe of "before the Church's beginnings".

2) it's history and Tradition. also agreed
however since this is the base of your statement, it is most likely this is where any misunderstanding will take place. so I gave a much longer explanation


lets start from the start. (I cut this down to as simply as possible, because the first draft seemed to be long winded)
- God gives instructions to Man on how to live
- man follows instructions
- man tells others of instructions
- man develops traditions / laws, that help / force other men into following Gods instructions.
- man forms organised bodies of People to regulate, guide and control these traditions / laws. these bodies are called the Church and the Government (the existing Government usually either adapts tO the traditions or is overthrown)
- the organised body then goes further by creating a reference point for all of their questions. because as time passes there needs to be a solid foundation to base more specific teachings on.
my example for this is Government Tax laws. it may have started as everyone pays the same % of their wage, now there is a whole library on the Tax system. all because the laws became more and more specific to individual cases.

right now I am scratching my head and wondering how I am going to explain my point of view without going around in circles.

the Church rose from the traditions of the religion. the religion rose from the practice of following Gods instructions.
the Bible rose from the Churches need to have a reference point for the instructions of God. witch in turn is from the Traditions of the religion.

so yes, the reason particular books were chosen as 'sacred text' was because they fit with the traditions of the Church members, wich are the traditions that arose from following the the teachings of God.




so the individual facts I tend to agree with (unless I misread?)
but I fail to see your bottom line. how does the origin of the Bible (or its individual books) relate to the purity of the teachings of the Orthodox church?
isn't that what your aiming at? that I should trust the teachings of the church?
Logged
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #702 on: November 25, 2011, 08:48:38 AM »

dispite your efforts, I am sorry to say that the bottom line is still unclear to me.

If it is still unclear to you after seven pages, I'd wager that this will never be clear to you but by the direct intervention of God in your life. Good luck trying to argue the word of God with Him who breathed it into the prophets, apostles, and evangelists themselves. A word of caution, however: When people refuse to "get it", bad things generally happen until/unless they come back to God. Since you are such a fan of scripture, surely you know what happened to the Jews when they complained against God while Moses was leading them through the wilderness? There but for the grace of God (quite literally!) go you or I...let's not trip all over ourselves to take those fallen Jews' places, OK?
Logged

just_some_guy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 33


« Reply #703 on: November 25, 2011, 10:05:34 AM »

If it is still unclear to you after seven pages, I'd wager that this will never be clear to you but by the direct intervention of God in your life.
Wow. Thank you dzheremi, your clear observation and ability to keep things in context has really opened my eyes. I finally understand why ....

um... on second thought I don't think sarcasm is a good strategy to use with you.
so let me just spell it out to you as plainly as possible:

my last post, specifically the part that you (mis)quoted, was in relation to Aindriú's statement "the Church wrote the Bible".
it was not in relation to the entire topic of this thread, witch is the implications I get from reading your post.
in fact the specific topic of the statement "the Church wrote the Bible" has been the running theme for the last few posts.

it would be much appreciated, not to mention beneficial to the thread, if you could keep your responces in context.

thank you
Logged
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #704 on: November 25, 2011, 10:34:45 AM »

And the fact that the church wrote the Bible is certainly central to the Orthodox understanding of this topic as a whole (especially as a response that is relevant to the way that you have approached it, with a sort of "Sola Scriptura" mindset), so it is definitely not out of context to bring it back to the wider point, since, after all this thread is entitled "Premarital Sex Y/N", not "My personal view of what the Bible says" or similar. Since you apparently do not understand that Bible is a document by and of the church and its faith (not a cudgel to be used against the church by anyone to suit their own desires), you cannot understand the wider context of the arguments brought against your false ideas.

So, yes, contextual responses only, please!
Logged

Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,925



« Reply #705 on: November 25, 2011, 11:54:53 AM »

If it is still unclear to you after seven pages, I'd wager that this will never be clear to you but by the direct intervention of God in your life.
Wow. Thank you dzheremi, your clear observation and ability to keep things in context has really opened my eyes. I finally understand why ....

um... on second thought I don't think sarcasm is a good strategy to use with you.
so let me just spell it out to you as plainly as possible:

my last post, specifically the part that you (mis)quoted, was in relation to Aindriú's statement "the Church wrote the Bible".
it was not in relation to the entire topic of this thread, witch is the implications I get from reading your post.
in fact the specific topic of the statement "the Church wrote the Bible" has been the running theme for the last few posts.

it would be much appreciated, not to mention beneficial to the thread, if you could keep your responces in context.

thank you

just_some_guy--I am not posting as the section moderator, so I hope you do not misinterpret my post. You are demanding that folks answer your question in exactly the way that you want it answered. There are many problems with your approach. First, acting like a spoiled brat will not get you the answers that you seek. Second, your standards for exegesis are structured to support only your own conclusion, which is that the Holy Scriptures do not forbid sex outside marriage.  Third, you mock Christians on this forum by insisting that they approve a sin. Fourth, and this is the most tragic one, you mock God. Look, if you are going to sin, why do you need pre-approval from us? Bottom line for me: you are not a serious person and may even be a person who gets his jollies by thinking that he is winning mind games against unsophisticated religious fanatics.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2011, 11:55:34 AM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #706 on: November 26, 2011, 04:02:29 AM »

This was saved to my word document..Posting it ,seems appropriate to re-post here......  police

BIBLE AS THE WORD OF GOD, VERSUS JESUS AS THE ETERNAL WORD OF GOD BORN IN THE FLESH.....
"At this point, allow me to reiterate that Orthodoxy is in no way based on the Bible. Nor is it based or derived from a set of oral teachings running parallel to the Bible. The Orthodox Church is the living Body of Christ - the living experience in history of the union of mankind with God in the divine-human Person of the Only-Begotten. The Word of God is not a book, but a Person. The Prophets, both those of the Old Covenant and those of the New, are those who have seen and heard and touched the Word of Life. The Divine Scriptures and the writings of the Saints are the written witness to this experience, but they are not the source of this experience." police
« Last Edit: November 26, 2011, 04:05:10 AM by stashko » Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #707 on: November 26, 2011, 04:25:28 AM »

Quote
Cognomen: This thread should've lasted about 3 posts, not 7 pages
if I just rolled over when you said "because the church says so" then I can see how 3 posts would suffice.
unfortunately there are many people in the world who do not care in the slightest what the church says or does (not saying I am one of them. I personally at least take the Churches opinion into consideration). therefore, in order to convert more followers it IS necessary for you to give other reasons for following the teachings of the Church.

The length of this thread isn't due to our (I presume that's what you mean by "you") regurgitation of the "because the Church says so" argument; it's due to your refusal to accept any reasons presented, simply because you don't like them.

A major premise contained in your challenge of the Church's position was thoroughly and soundly refuted in reply #3 (post #4).  I stand corrected, as this thread should have been over in 5 posts rather than 3, ending with your acknowledgement of your misunderstanding and expression of gratitude to Xariskai for providing such well-researched information.

Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
just_some_guy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 33


« Reply #708 on: November 28, 2011, 11:50:54 PM »

Quote
Cognomen: A major premise contained in your challenge of the Church's position was thoroughly and soundly refuted in reply #3 (post #4). 

for all those interested, here is the post being referred to

The standard major academic resources on philology contradict the position you are advocating. http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37085.0.html

Quote from: just_some_guy
is there anything anyone would like to say to try and convince me
No. We can present the data of the major academic philologists and the early church, but what one finds often mysteriously correlates to what one truly seeks.
Quote from: just_some_guy
G-day all
I am a 21 year old and I would like to have sex  angel
however I am not ready for marrage. so I was looking...
"They peered deep down into the well and found their own reflection."

and here was my responce to it

Quote
Quote
xariskai: Bump -is there some reason you chose not address the fact that the standard major academic resources contradict the position you are advocating on definition?
"the standard major academic resource".   HA!
the reason I missed it was because I couldn't find the line between being witty and being degrading with my responce.
It strikes me as funny how you say "the standard" is on this site.
and I found it down right narrow minded of you to imply that this particular "major academic resource" is the standard for all denominations. This site may not be The standard even for Orthodox Christians. let alone all Christians. let alone all other academic resources.
so in short; the reason I chose not to address this 'fact' is because it is nothing more than your own personal 'opinion'. next time you want to present a 'fact' then do just that. present a 'fact'


now my direct responce to Cognomen:
you state that Reply# 3 "thoroughly and soundly refuted" one of my "major premise contained in [my] challenge of the Church's position"
first off, it would seem that my responce "thoroughly and soundly refuted" reply# 3 considering there has been 7 pages of talking since then, and not once has "The standard major academic resources on philology" been mentioned since then.
secondly, the "major premise" that responce# 3 is referring to is the position I was making on definition (see reply# 27 for conformation). however the debate has moved well past that approach.
Logged
just_some_guy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 33


« Reply #709 on: November 29, 2011, 12:27:48 AM »

well said stashko, just one point:
Quote
stashko: allow me to reiterate that Orthodoxy is in no way based on the Bible
once again it comes down to Because the Orthodox Church says so   Undecided

your argument was sound, however it still takes us back to the same topic Aindriú and myself where discussing. why should I trust the East Orthodox Church over ... say... the West Orthodox Church? or the Baptist Church? or the Roman Catholic Church? or Anglicanism? Lutheranism? Presbyterianism? Methodists? or any number of 'Reformed Churches'? ... and the List goes on

I have asked "why should I not have premarital sex?"
and the answer was "because the Orthodox Church says so"

now I ask "why should I trust the Orthodox Church?"

actually this was started back at reply# 171.
and since then we have addressed some points and proposed answers to this question (most notably "because the Church wrote the Bible") but have so far been unable to come to a satisfactory conclusion.



@ Second Chance
I had thought up individual counterarguments to each of your points. I even thought up more broad based arguments and points to pose against you.
but in the end I felt that this one is the least confrontational:

Quote
Second Chance: Bottom line for me: you are not a serious person and may even be a person who gets his jollies by thinking that he is winning mind games against unsophisticated religious fanatics
the only reason I can see as to why you would think this is because you think you have already presented the Answer to my original question.
unfortunately, as stated in my responce to stashko, we are still trying to validate that answer.

stating the flaws in your other observations will only detract from the main problem here, and that is the Questions "what makes you so sure that the Orthodox Church has it right?" or "why should I trust the Orthodox Church over other Churches?" or any other wording for a question that asks the same message.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,361


fleem
WWW
« Reply #710 on: November 29, 2011, 12:40:36 AM »

I don't think you have time to sit through the entire history of the Orthodox Church. I don't even think that would be enough for you. I believe we've found there is a different problem. You are not really asking why the Church doesn't like sex before marriage.

You just don't like the claims to authority of the Orthodox Church.

That's the problem. Why shilly-shally about it?

 Roll Eyes
Logged

Charlie Rose: "If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?"

Fran Lebowitz: "Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #711 on: November 29, 2011, 12:50:22 AM »

now my direct responce to Cognomen:
you state that Reply# 3 "thoroughly and soundly refuted" one of my "major premise contained in [my] challenge of the Church's position"
first off, it would seem that my responce "thoroughly and soundly refuted" reply# 3 considering there has been 7 pages of talking since then, and not once has "The standard major academic resources on philology" been mentioned since then.
secondly, the "major premise" that responce# 3 is referring to is the position I was making on definition (see reply# 27 for conformation). however the debate has moved well past that approach.

You're right.  You've blown the lid off of the Church's mistake on this, and we've all been wrong for a very very long time.

Get over yourself and your explanations (justifications).
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,441


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #712 on: November 29, 2011, 12:51:17 AM »

I don't think you have time to sit through the entire history of the Orthodox Church. I don't even think that would be enough for you. I believe we've found there is a different problem. You are not really asking why the Church doesn't like sex before marriage.

You just don't like the claims to authority of the Orthodox Church.

That's the problem. Why shilly-shally about it?

 Roll Eyes

BINGO!
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #713 on: November 29, 2011, 01:02:38 AM »

Seriously. The attitude of the OP is astounding. And you expect some woman to sleep with you? And when she says no because you're an arrogant man-child, are you going to ask for scriptural evidence to justify her stance?

This is probably my all time favorite OC.net quote.
Yeah that is a pretty good one.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Hiwot
Christ is Risen!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 1,959


Job 19:25-27


« Reply #714 on: November 29, 2011, 01:12:36 AM »

it has come to my attention that my responces are becoming spaced further and further apart. an indication that this thread if coming to a close.

This thread should've lasted about 3 posts, not 7 pages.

LOL hilarious and true! I am amazed at the energy  invested by the OP in persuing this matter which to my understanding whose inquiry has been answered  quite sometime ago, actually I am a bit envious of his diligence.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 01:36:14 AM by Hiwot » Logged

To God be the Glory in all things! Amen!

Only pray for me, that God would give me both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but truly will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one. St.Ignatius of Antioch.Epistle to the Romans.
just_some_guy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 33


« Reply #715 on: November 29, 2011, 01:16:53 AM »

Quote
biro: You are not really asking why the Church doesn't like sex before marriage.
your right... well, your right that I am not asking that question anymore.

I did ask that question right near the start of the thread, however the answer I received was because the Orthodox Church is still pure in the teachings of the Apostles.

Now the question I am asking is for proof that the Orthodox teachings are pure.



Quote
You just don't like the claims to authority of the Orthodox Church.
once again, Absolutely correct.
what authority does the Orthodox Church have that the denominations don't?

this is yet another rewording of the same question I have been asking for a while now.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,361


fleem
WWW
« Reply #716 on: November 29, 2011, 01:18:18 AM »

Other than that it was founded by Christ, taught all over the world by the Apostles, wrote the New Testament, and is the oldest church in the world?

You need more?  Huh
Logged

Charlie Rose: "If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?"

Fran Lebowitz: "Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
Pikhristos Aftonf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Melbourne
Posts: 210


« Reply #717 on: November 29, 2011, 03:18:21 AM »

JSG,
i understand you come from a completely different mindset. have you done any study of the history of the christian faith?  if you have, you will find that Rome split away from THE CHURCH  in 1054. this was because of Papal supremacy claims as well as various heresy compounded over the centuries. after that there were three christian groups, the Miaphysites, the Chalcedonians and Rome, it is my personal belief that from that point onwards, two of these groups were representative of the faith of the apostles, while the third erred. Then came the reformation of 1523 but that was an internal rebellion within the Roman church, which tried to combat a wrong interpretation of Christianity by becoming less christian. then came the splitting era, where many denominations split from the protestant "bloc" . so would you rather follow a consistent faith that existed in documents from the first century, or the interpretations made by schismatics whose rebellions led to the breaking away from apostolic traditions? the apostles are direct students of christ, and the early church fathers are direct students of the apostles, it is an unbroken lineage. unlike protestantism where there is much disagreement and the like and no real defined faith and its origins. personally i would rather the faith of the fathers, the faith of the apostles, the faith in Christ as taught by the earliest believers as recorded in the God-inspired writings ( even though i am a Coptic Orthodox adherent, in my opinion the Faith in the 7 councils held by the EOs is as perfect as that of my own church, key word being Faith!) so what evidence does protestantism have of any apostle supporting their oft-contradicting and mostly non-traditional interpretations of the Scriptures? we the Orthodox have the writings of the Apostles, the writings of the students of the apostles and the council of hundreds of God-fearing bishops. I think the faith is pretty safe down at the Orthodox church Wink
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,925



« Reply #718 on: November 29, 2011, 01:52:04 PM »


unfortunately, as stated in my responce to stashko, we are still trying to validate that answer.


Well, I do not think that anybody on this thread, except for you, is trying to validate any answer. We do not have a problem; you do because (and I am praying that this is the case) you want to have sex outside marriage and you want others to agree with you so that somehow your conscience will then be clear. This shows to me that you are not driven solely by your lusts and that the ember in you may be brought into full flame. Why don't you try to find what God wants you to do and be?
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
just_some_guy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 33


« Reply #719 on: November 30, 2011, 06:36:30 AM »

biro, your statement "You need more?" is a cleaver use of an argumentative technique that gives the reader the impression that the points previously stated are adequate for answering the question.
unfortunately most of what you said is not even factual. if your point of view is based on unsupported half truths and out right inaccurate claims then I wonder why I should listen to Anything you say?

anyway, I need to back up my claim that what you said isn't even factual. so here it is:
Quote
it was founded by Christ
no, Christ (Jesus) never founded any church. he simply roamed the land teaching Gods word, and other people just followed him.
Jesus never established Any sort of structured organisation for the teaching and following of Gods word.

Quote
taught all over the world by the Apostles
no, the Apostles taught Gods word.
if the teachings of the Orthodox Church are the pure, unaltered teachings of Gods word then this statement is true enough.
however this statement is NOT evidence that the teachings of the Orthodox Church are the pure, unaltered teachings of Gods word. there for to use it as such is a miss representation.

Quote
wrote the new Testament
sigh, we have been over this.
after a prolonged conversation on this particular view, here was my closing responce (I say closing because no-one answered my question):
Quote
just_some_guy: reply# 301
so the individual facts I tend to agree with (unless I misread?)
but I fail to see your bottom line. how does the origin of the Bible (or its individual books) relate to the purity of the teachings of the Orthodox church?

Quote
and is the oldest church in the world
what about "the church of God which is at Corinth" (quoted from first 1 Corinthians).
does the Orthodox Church predate this Church? since this church was around during the time of the Apostles then I highly doubt it.
AND, in 1Cor 5:1 you will read "It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans [...]". Whats this? even a Church all the way back then was less than pure! *Gasp*.
Not only where they not pure, they where doing things that NOT EVEN THE PAGANS DID!!
so your telling me that a Church that had Direct access to Jesus and his Apostles strayed from the straight and narrow, yet the Orthodox Church has some how remained pure for 2000 years. (any you wonder why I have my doubts)


Biro, I do not believe that you would willingly lie in order to win an argument, but isn't that worse? because that means you actually believe what you are saying here. if such blatant inaccurate "facts" are what you call evidence then I wonder why either of us even bother here...





Pikhristos Aftonf
anyone who makes a reply of that length either just did a massive copy and past, or put some effort into their responce.
since this is that latter of the two, thank you for your time.

this first 2 thirds of your responce is a simple history lesson. because it is all just a statement of Fact I have nothing negative to say about it.
the final third however puts forward some flawed reasoning that is then used to justify your final conclusion.

Quote
so would you rather follow a consistent faith that existed in documents from the first century, or the interpretations made by schismatics whose rebellions led to the breaking away from apostolic traditions?
depends who is teaching the Truth.
because this is stated as a question, then you are not technically saying anything wrong. however the questions is designed to give an obvious answer that can then be attached to your preferred conclusion. in legal terms this is called a 'leading question'
and your end conclusion is based on the assumption that the Orthodox Church is "consistant" with the early teachings.

Quote
the apostles are direct students of Christ, and the early church fathers are direct students of the apostles, it is an unbroken lineage.
unbroken? maybe.  perfect? far from it. ever heard of the game "Chinese whispers". no matter how "unbroken" the line is, some how the end result is still different from the start.

Quote
unlike protestantism where there is much disagreement and the like and no real defined faith and its origins.
here you make the assumption that I would feel some need to back up Protestantism. in fact I would walk away from protestantism just as fast as I would the Orthodox Church. so feel free to bad mouth other denominations all you like, but it doesn't really work towards building up the reputation of the Orthodox Church.

Quote
personally i would rather the faith of the fathers, the faith of the apostles, the faith in Christ as taught by the earliest believers as recorded in the God-inspired writings
lol, I totally agree.
especially the part about the "God-inspired writings".

Quote
so what evidence does protestantism have of any apostle supporting their oft-contradicting and mostly non-traditional interpretations of the Scriptures?
once again, you talk down on the Protestants in order to build up the Orthodox Church.
and the "oft-contradicting and mostly non-traditional" argument is flawed. the Roman Catholic Churches teachings are not contradictory, and they are Very tradition orientated in their teaching meathods. they are in many cases Wrong! but that is beside the point according to your reasoning.

Quote
we the Orthodox have the writings of the Apostles, the writings of the students of the apostles and the council of hundreds of God-fearing bishops
firstly, shouldn't ALL Churches have "the writings of the Apostles and the writings of the students of the apostles"?
and secondly, doesn't the Roman Catholic Church also have "the council of hundreds of God-fearing bishops" (and the Pope)?

Quote
I think the faith is pretty safe down at the Orthodox church
and here is your final conclusion. since I have exposed the flaws in your reasoning behind this, then the Final conclusion is still in question.





Quote
Second Chance: Well, I do not think that anybody on this thread, except for you, is trying to validate any answer. We do not have a problem;
really?
well if you think your correct, and I think I am correct, and neither of us has a problem with that. then we should all just stop this thread here and get on with our lives.
you know... unless of course you want to challenge your / the oppositions point of view? but hey, that 'get on with our lives' option sounds pretty tempting.

Quote
you want to have sex outside marriage and you want others to agree with you so that somehow your conscience will then be clear
close enough.
its not that I want others to agree with me, I know I can't please everyone. so there for there will always be both someone who agrees with me and someone who does not.
its more to the point that I don't want to be wrong. and by pitting one view against the other then I can see witch one stands the test.

Quote
Why don't you try to find what God wants you to do and be?
um... OK
isn't that what I am doing here? trying to find the truth of what God wants? and not just listening to what the Church or the World wants.
Logged
Tags: premarital sex sin 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 »   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 0.2 seconds with 72 queries.