for today I shall address points
that have been brought up. and assosiate quotes where neccissary.
I think this will be easier to ready than addressing the quotes individually."I know that premarital sex is a sin" (and any other quote / statement that goes along these lines)
I do not
whole heartedly believe that premarital sex is a sin.
that small echo inside my head from childhood. that small grain of doubt. the voices in my ears (from the church) that tell me that remarital sex is
a sin... these are very quickly being drowned out by the inability of the combined wisdom of the followers of God to present (or even concoct) evidence / proof / 'grounds in witch to believe in' to support the statement.
if you really do want me to see things from your point of view, then take note that I am not someone who follows christianity with blindfaith.
any future reference to the absurde notion that I know
that premarital sex is a sin shall here by be ignored."the consequences of your actions, in this life and the next"
are you so blind to what I am asking? if this 'tradition' of the church is based on something other
than the bible/direct revelation by God. then the consequences to premarital sex are no worse than the consequences of having cearial in the morning.
stating "the consequences" as a fact is totally missing the point. it is "the consequences" that are in question.
Generally in life if you don't know what is the right path to take, it is incredibly unwise to rush into things. That certainly applies in this situation, too.
I know. that is why I am not rushing in. I am not commiting my self to the action (or even the possibility of the action) until this discrepency is solved.
but nor will I rush into agreeing with points made by the opposing point of view. I will take the time to study these points. and where possible I will counter said points. until eventually we come to the absolute conclution. not neccessarily siding with my original 'preconceived notions'.
Aindriu: an Orthodox Christian considers the Orthodox Church to be THE Church of Jesus Christ that holds the correct teachings of God, the Apostles, and the Saints within itself which is manifested in the Holy Traditions, of which the Bible is an important part (but only part).
(there are other quotes like this one, or imply a strong agreeance with this)
the "Orthodox Christian".
Orthodox being the sub-catagory of the overall religous faith Christianity.
the "Orthodox Christianity" by definition (Wiki)
The term Orthodox Christianity may refer to:
- the Eastern Orthodox Church and its various geographical subdivisions (such as the Russian, Greek, Cypriot, and Serbian Orthodox Churches)
- the various Oriental Orthodox churches (such as the Coptic, Ethiopian, and Syriac Orthodox Churches)
- Western Rite Orthodoxy, congregations or groups which are allied to Eastern or Oriental Orthodoxy, while using traditional Western liturgies
- other Christian churches or theologies which consider themselves to be orthodox (non-heretical), irrespective of whether or not a given church uses the word "orthodox" in its official name; when used in this sense, the word "orthodox" is generally not capitalized
so by right, any Christian who consideres their beliefes to be 'orthodox' (non-heretical), can call themselves to be an "Orthodox Christian".
and for my personal opinion on the matter: you are a narrow minded biggot.
are you implying that other Christian denominations are wrong? that what they are teaching is not the "the correct teachings of God, the Apostles, and the Saints"? so what happens to the followers of those faiths? why hasn't the "Orthodox" church made a stand against the follower of other churches, other churches that are (according to you) not "THE Church of Jesus".
I am happy to continue discussing this particular discrepency. I would like to see you realise that you are
just another denomination.you seem set in your ways. nothing we say will change that
this statement, or any like it, is not compleatly accurate.
to say that I will not even consider the opposing view is in complete disregards to the reason I even started this thread. I AM
here to listen to your point of view, and then debate
it! I am not going to just accept what you say on (and here is that term again) blind faith. I want evidence.
on the other hand the statement is surprisingly accurate. nothing you said so far has changed my mind. and if the trends continue Im not even sure we will come close. you guys (and girls) are just not very good at providing convincing counter arguments.abortion (still *sigh*)
fist off. when I said "abortions are Not 'bad'
", that was soposed to be the header for the following sub catagories. You shold read it as...
"abortions are Not 'bad' socially, because ..."
"abortions are Not 'bad' financially, because ..."
"abortions are Not 'bad' politically, because..."
and as for the only responces I have recieved for these three dot points (Michał Kalina
): maybe I miss read the first one, but you seem to be giving examples of how what I said is true.
Quinault pointed out why this argument is invalid.
no she didn't
she pointed out that a woman wouldn't know she is pregnate until AFTER the baby has become a living being.
but there are still the morning after pills. the 'just to be on the safe side' abortions where the mother doesn't know whether or not she has been impregnated.
and abortions are still
not the topic of this thread. even though I addressed them in the OP, it was only to put at ease the mind of those few people who would be distrought by the idea that I would even mention abortions.
and take note of This quote:
•and even if you did convince me that abortions are wrong, I have already given other instances where sex is still possible without the introduction of a child into the equation.
by that last quote alone (which happened to also come from the OP), the subject of abortions becomes irrelevant to the main subject of this thread. thus it is here by ignored.the literal and accurate interpritation of the bible
it was pointed out by Michał Kalina
that these two contradict each other. so I shall rephrase:
I believe in the accurate
interpritation of the bible.
'the creation', 'the great flood', 'sodom and gomorrah', 'jesus walking on water' and so forth. these parts of the bible I take literally
, and not as just some metaphor.
katherineofdixie: "literal and accurate interpretation of the Bible" = "my own personal interpretation that allows me to do whatever I want"
think what you like about me. but at the end of the day remember this:
so far there is little to no evidence to support that my
interpretation is wrong.the traditions of the Church. The church is not wrong in these sorts of things...
Yes, yes, everyone has been wrong for thousands of years, and you are the one who is right...
firstly, not just me. there are lots of people with the same point of view I have. it is just I am one of the more resent people to "see the error of my ways" (and yes, I know YOU don't see it like that. I am willing to discuss who is right... oh wait. we already are. nvm)
the church been right for thousands of years? lets look into this...
the Medieval Church (476-999AD = the Early Middle Ages. 1000-1299AD = the High Middle Ages. 1300-1500AD = the Late Middle Ages)
in the Medieval Church they believed/taught the following:
- the only way they could get to Heaven was if the Roman Catholic Church let them
- if you were killed in an accident while working in a cathedral or a church, you were guaranteed a place in Heaven
- the very idea of Purgatory
- the idea that, to help those in Purgatory, you can pay more to the Church. or do other survices for the church
- A failure to pay tithes would lead to your soul going to Hell after you had died.
- You also had to pay for the following:
- baptisms - if you were not baptised you could not go to Heaven when you died
- burials - you had to be buried on holy land if your soul was to get to heaven.
- marriages -there were no couples living together in Medieval times as the Church taught that this equaled sin
- and unless I am mistaken, the church also supported the "flat earth" idea.
it was not until the Council of Trent (1545-63) that many of these view that where upheld and taught by the church where 'ammended'
and you mean to tell me that the 'traditions' of the Church are a valid reference point for your views? I say no. the 'traditions' of the church are empty unless
you can back them up.
oh. and did you notice that you had to pay for marriages? am I going to far as to sugest that the current 'traditions' of the Church are nothing more than a holdover from when the church was in it for the money.Sola scriptura
tieing in closely with the 'traditions of the church'. kind of a "my point of view / your point of view" thing.
lets start with the Wikipedia Definition. key points have been highlighted:
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, sola scriptura demands that only those doctrines are to be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from scripture. However, sola scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God. Sola scriptura was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the Reformers and is a formal principle of Protestantism today (see Five solas).
During the Reformation, authentication of scripture was governed by the discernible excellence of the text as well as the personal witness of the Holy Spirit to the heart of each man. Furthermore, per sola scriptura, the relationship of Scriptural authority to pastoral care was well exampled by the Westminster Confession of Faith which stated:
VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
Here the phrase "due use of the ordinary means" includes appeals to pastors and teachers (Ephesians 4:11-14). As such, sola scriptura reflects a careful tension between the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture necessary for its role as final authority, and the occasional need for its meaning to be revealed by exposition (Hebrews 5:12).
Beyond the Reformation, as in some Evangelical and Baptist denominations, sola scriptura is stated even more strongly: it is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.
By contrast, the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches teach that the Scriptures are not the only infallible source of Christian doctrine. For them Scripture is but one of three equal authorities; the other two being Sacred Tradition and the episcopacy. These churches also believe that the Church has authority to establish or restrict interpretation of Scriptures because, in part, it implicitly selected which books were to be in the biblical canon through its traditions, whereas Protestants believe the Church passively recognized and received the books that were already widely considered canonical.
under the 'Traditions of the Church' section I gave my reasons for not following said traditions with blind faith. thus everything I believe in can be followed back to the interpritations of scripture.
I honestly do not think there is even the Possibility
of you convincing me to follow traditions that can not be backed up. feel free to try, but I am just the sort of person who needs evidence.
You came to an Orthodox Christian forum, so we will give you an Orthodox Christian perspective
however (as said) the use of traditions as a way of convincing me is highly
unlikely to work. the bible may not be the only reference you use to guide your spiritual life, but it is one of them. and surely somewhere
in there there is something
that backs up your point of view?the post made by FountainPen
I knew it was humour.
but personally I like to keep things in context. ie: the part of those passages you didn't highlight.dzheremi: You have to believe in the truth of the faith yourself, not simply go through the motions.
this quote deserves individual reference. however I either disagree with you or do not understand what you are implying.
with what you are saying
. that one has to believe in the truth of the faith. but I dissagree in your implications that I do not.
I believe that the way I see the bible is
the truth. or to put it into better context. I believe that the following is NOT the truth of the faith
the worship of Saint Mary. the worship of a direct desendant of Saint Paul (the pope). the need
to get baptised. the need
to go to a confesional to confess your sins. the need
to be circumsied. and the need to live a life of abstinence
I fully aknowlage the fact that you think I have "picked up many ideas that are wrong". but you fail to convince me that they are
wrong. to me they are the truth.
the way you see me right now: missguided. unwilling to see 'the truth' of the matter; that is how I see you!
I listen to logic and reason. I research the issue. I adress
the issue. you on the other hand keep to 'what the church says' is such a stuburn manner.
Did you know that biologically a woman cannot separate sex from the emotional feeling of love and that men can do this?
I will let you lot sort this point out. I personly have come to the conclution that Ninjaly Awesome
is quite irrational in his approch to this thread. and thus I not going to address point that only relate to his
point of view (as oposed to the churches point of view).
although I will not be ignoring him totally. he may still have something constructive to say.
I am getting the feeling that, like others before him, the OP is a soapbox orator who is enamored with his own voice and delights in shooting down opposing points. May the Lord bring him to his senses before his hubris gets him in trouble.
It seems to me that you are either dead set and doing this and just trying to argue with us for the sake of arguing, in which case you are free to do as you wish,
my responce to you two, and anyone who thinks along these lines:
I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. I am arguing for the sake of finding a conclution. "the truth" as it were.
as for "delights in shooting down opposing points". that is true.
it is an ego boost to not only know
Im right, but to also be able to prove
and I prove Im right one opposing point at a time. if you disagree with my points then maybe you should "shoot them down". prove to me I am in the wrong. so far the majority of my points have simply been brushed aside as "warped ideas".the difinition of sin
I am happy to discuss this. in fact I think it is the only real progress we have made in this thread.
it is just too bad I don't have the time right now. I will be busy for the next week so will be unable to go online. and because I don't want to rush into a topic of such importance I will have to give it a miss until next week.
if there are any discrepencies you
have amongst eachother about the difinition. or if you could cut it down to "the definition" and then add the "reasons for this definition" seporately that would help later on when I am trying to play catch-up.
I have said a lot in this thread. and Im sure I have not even addressed all of what has be brought up so far.
but, unfortunatly, if you pay close attention to my responces it seems like we are just trying to decide what is going to be discussed. we have made depressingly little head way.
please, for all our sakes, read over my responces and come to terms with what I am asking
. even if you disagree with what I am saying
and then, whether through sola scripture or the traditions of the church; at least come up with some clear, definable reasons why
you consider premarital sex to be a sin.
I will be back in a week. I hope to see progress