No one before the Birth of Christ had the Kingdom of God walking in their presence, either...where the blind received their sight, and the dead were raised , and the lame walked...but Christ freely gave to those who believed and trusted Him.Post 2
So, I will trust Him. I know I made the right decision according to how I am guided in His will for me.
There is a time to die, but it needs to be properly placed before Him. I will not premeditate my dismissal... if He has other plans, I will know it soon enough.
I tend to see the material governance as a necessary evil. It is perhaps one of the least of evils that exist that are necessary, but it is still a small evil. That is, in a utopia, if all were to live by a golden rule, and all were charitable to one another, where we are secure with one another, there would be no violence, no war, no punishment, and therefore, no governance. And I truly believe that's also the goal in Christianity, to live as if all things needed no governance. Let your government be content with your peaceful Christian behavior. However, the devil will never rest, and so there are always different answers to your question for different times and places.
The human being needs training and guidance. What we have in, say, the U.S. way of governing today is a plethora of ways to incur punishment but no guidance and wisdom thereto. This is not worthy of the name of government -- neither is it some spontaneous utopia, need I say.
There is no governance without repercussions, whether they be in fines or other forms of penalties. That is why "governance" is a necessary evil in my view. The Church is what provides (should provide) guidance, wisdom, services for those in need. That is the way of evangelization. And it should be done in freedom, and not in a governing (or in some instances business) fashion.
Islamists seem to recognize as much, that there are those set penalties in the aHadith that are prescribed for those who break certain laws. This is what ISIS is practicing at the moment, but it is also practicing "war laws" as well, laws that are only practiced in time of "physical jihad". And so you have the occurrence of sexual jihad as alluded to earlier as well as the brutality of killings that is justified by [what they hope to be] the ends, a Machiavellian philosophy.
Their religion IS a religion of governance, whereas Christianity alludes to a religion that transcends any earthly law or philosophy, but it is rooted in freedom. An Islamist that goes to a land to teach their religion would try to persuade, but if that fails, they bring upon them the sword. A disciple of Christ is taught to go, preach, and offer services to those in need, but if you are not welcome, shake the dust off your feet and move on. To govern over an area means to enforce laws of belief into people. But Christ said, "shake the dust off your feet". Christ does not desire that we govern, but that we be like servants in the world. He emphasizes the poor, not the rich, the weak, not the strong, the fools, not the wise. This to me undermines any idea of a "Christian governance" or "empire" that was once dreamed by the Orthodox world.
She 'saves' us because she can communicate intimately with Christ, her son, in a way we cannot. It's more like, she asks Christ to save us.
I know, Im Catholic after all so Im very familiar with praying to Mary.
Im not questioning Marian devotions or prayers, but simply the Save us part.
There is a huge difference between praying to Mary and asking for her intercession and to ask HER to save us.
It's a Catholic tradition too
Here's the concluding prayer of the Rosary according to the method of Louis De Monfort,
Hail Mary, beloved Daughter of the Eternal Father, admirable Mother of the Son, faithful Spouse of the Holy Spirit, august Temple of the most Holy Trinity! Hail, sovereign princess, to whom all owe subjection in Heaven and on earth! Hail, sure refuge of sinners, Our Lady of Mercy, who hast never refused any request. All sinful though I am, I cast myself at thy feet and beseech thee to obtain from Jesus, thy beloved Son, contrition and pardon for all my sins, as well as the gift of divine wisdom. I consecrate myself entirely to thee with all that I have. I choose thee today for my Mother and Mistress. Treat me, then, as the least of thy children and the most obedient of thy servants. Listen, my princess, listen to the sighs of a heart that desires to love and serve thee faithfully. Let it never be said that of all those who have had recourse to thee, I was the first to be abandoned. O my hope, O my life, O my faithful and Immaculate Virgin Mary, defend me, nourish me, hear me, teach me and save me. Amen.St. Ireneaus
Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race.
I have tried to understand it as being part of the plan of God, and how he uses created beings (humans, angels, our own efforts, and even sometimes animals) to help facilitate and bring about our salvation. Now, I agree, asking someone to 'save us' is different than requesting someone to 'help me be saved,' but I think it can sometimes mean the same thing regardless of which way it's phrased, and I think it's important to think about the intention and substance of what is being said. Consider the Scriptural passage: Post 5
"I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them." (Rom. 11:13-14)
If someone had said this who wasn't a Scriptural author, we might question this, even if said by a towering Father of the Church. Can a person really say that his ministry can save people? Isn't it God who saves through that ministry, not the ordinary human person doing the saving? I think we all agree with the idea that God ultimately does the saving, and "every good gift" (James 1:17) is from him. The idea in this passage though seems to be just that God has given St. Paul a task (God wants all to be saved--1 Tim. 2:3-4--and Paul is part of trying to bring that about), and that insofar as Paul succeeds he is also playing a part in the salvation of people. He says something along these lines in another place:
"Be diligent in these matters; give yourself wholly to them, so that everyone may see your progress. Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers." (1 Tim. 4:15-16)
I don't think anyone would take that last part to mean that we can save people in the same way that Christ does, or that people can be saved apart from God, or without grace, or that people can play roles equally important in saving someone. If we can ever be said to have helped save someone then we're just a part, and usually a small part, but the point here is that we can and sometimes do play a part in the spiritual lives and salvation of others, and we shouldn't think our actions and words have no impact or consequences. St. James seems to echo this when he says:
"Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins." (James 5:19-20)
As to how such things could be done, it is not accomplished of our own abilities apart from grace, but in cooperation with God, working together with him (1 Cor. 3:9; 2 Cor. 6:1). The activity of God in bringing about our salvation is assumed here in some of these passages, even if that is not mentioned explicitly. In other places this idea is made more explicit though, such as in in Phil. 2:12-13, where St. Paul tells people to continue working out their own salvation, yet adds immediately that it is God who gives the grace to accomplish this.
So, if I could summarize that: salvation is a process, and God plays the primary part, but we nonetheless have to play our own part in things--in both our own salvation, but sometimes also in that of others. And as it relates to your original post, I think the words about Mary can be understood in the same way as in the above Scriptural passages. I don't take the words about Mary to mean that she saves us apart from Christ, but rather by her prayers and love we are saved in and through her communion and cooperation with Christ.
Perhaps I've gone on enough, but let me add one other thing, from a different angle. The Scripture also speaks of how we can be said to be "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pet. 1:4), but that might be very confusing language if you are approaching such an idea in isolation. What does this even mean? Do we become like God himself, or gods equal to the triune God? However, if you start with the understanding that we are created and God is uncreated, that we are finite and God is infinite, and so on--in other words, that we could never ever be equal to God in his essence--then the verse makes sense in light of that. We are divinized, made holy and grow in virtue, enter into communion with God, 'I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me,' (Gal. 2:20) and so forth. Having the 'image of God' we recover the 'likeness' to God. (Gen. 1:26)
So the mystery of salvation is relational, and communal, and about movements: both through the passage time and also in our souls growing toward God. If we play a part in helping others make positive progress, positive movement, then sometimes we might call that helping save them. It would be dangerous to speak too casually of this, I think, but the principle is still a sound one so long as excess can be avoided. So, I think you are perfectly right to fear excesses related to such things, though I would say that this in particular is not a case of excess.
Remember, too, that some of the most selfless (and effective) acts done to assist in the salvation of the world were taken by the holy monastics who repaired to the desert and cut themselves off from nearly all human communication. From this act of love we benefit not only by their prayers but from the incredible theological riches they have bequeathed to us.Post 6
Christ says, "My Kingdom is not of this world," and the Orthodox Christian approach to such things is truly a completely different paradigm from the Dominionist philosophy critiqued in Arakaki's article. As he, and others here over the years, have pointed out, Symphonia can be a beautiful thing when it is done right, but the effectiveness and triumph of the Orthodox Faith is not wedded to any particular political system.
In fact, we sing this every week in our Divine Liturgy, "Put not your trust in princes and sons of men, in whom there is no salvation. When his breath departs, he returns to his earth: On that very day his plans perish! The Lord will reign forever; your God, O Zion, to all generations."
Post 7 I don't think that works.
Yes, one willing soul at a time, I think.
What I highlighted troubles me as it is an easy phrase to throw out there and it sounds great from a rhetorical perspective.
But ..... what then would you suggest short of forced conversion and state imposed and enforced moral standards as determined by (whom)?
I remember the late Bishop John of our diocese many years ago would state that if you were the only person to be saved on this planet that all of history and Christ's passion, death and Resurrection would still take place as it has done. So if one soul at a time is not sufficient - what is?
Köstenberger and Kruger's 2010 book The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture's Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity
does a very nice job of deconstructing the Bauer hypothesis of which Ehrman is but one of the newest and flashiest peddlers. It was bunk back in the 1930s when Bauer first came up with it, it's bunk now, and it always will be bunk. You can either get mad at college level university courses (why would you expect them to teach anything but this garbage in the first place?), or you can do the work yourself to make sure that at least you know what you're talking about. What the rest of the world does is neither surprising nor half as revolution as they think it is. Every year (to be more accurate, every sweeps week) there is a new 'discovery' that they'll say will shake Christianity to its core. It's talked about in media outlets for a few weeks and then a Jackson's boob falls out of alignment and we all forget about the papyri of Jesus' wife, the tomb of Jesus' brother, the "1500 year old Bible" in Turkey, the Gospel of Barnabas, the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Thomas, or whatever other thing these dumb 'scholars' think they've enlightened the world with. If it bothers you, stop giving it and them attention. Personally, I prefer to laugh at it because it's all so freaking dumb. "The lost books of the Bible!" Ooooo...ahhh...gnostics existed!
Guess that means Jesus was an illuminated, shape-shifting alien hermaphrodite...until he's something else again next week.
I wonder if you are speaking of what was usually called "idolatry" when it was addressed in other churches I have been to? (I say this because I don't know how the Orthodox address it.)
Essentially, anything we place too much importance on can become an idol. Of course that is a built-in danger with things that are potentially addictive, because they can cause a craving in some people that push their importance to the level of idolatry.
Other than that, I think what you are asking is essentially not really related to "addictive" substances, is it? You're not really talking about inebriation, are you?
If you ARE talking about inebriation, then I'd say the first couple of replies to you are actually correct. Drinking wine is not a sin. Getting drunk with wine is. It does matter how much "tolerance" one has, and it's more important to worry about oneself than to worry about what others are doing.
But I do think you're talking about something else here? That anything can become an obsession/addiction/idol, and we should be on guard against any of those things if they come between us and God, or cause us to value them too highly, etc.?
As far as making eating tacos or buying shoes sacred, I'm a lot less sure about that. We had a fellowship superbowl party one time with a church that was really family before moving away, and that was important in its own way. But in general - I think it's hard to say that bingeing on chocolate or shopping the mall can be sacred?
However ... I do have an understanding that such things as working in the garden, caring for livestock, farm work, and such CAN be sacred. Others would probably say such about producing art and music, perhaps? So I would agree that it is not only the Divine Liturgy that is a sacred activity, but I am sure it depends on the person, and may be limited to certain kinds of activities.
Not sure if I'm taking this where you are trying to go? Just making an effort.
Lord have mercy. Post 10
How very sad.
WPN - it may help you to keep in mind that even if some fact in the newspaper may not be able to be verified by those of us who are limited to reading the news, there truly is nothing new in mankind. Suicides and murders of families or others is so common place. We do know what is in mankind and that he has the seed of destruction in him. . .so maybe a way of looking at any news article any where were prayer may be a good response is that it IS a fact of this world - and of human nature. . .and God can take that prayer toward ALL victims of such a thing . . .and all SINNERS who fall in such a thing. . . how sad in both. . .
Nothing is ever wasted in prayer. It is good, however not to be so tied up in the news that it becomes our teacher and leader. We have One Teacher in Jesus Christ.
But your point is not lost. . .I too wonder what is spun to manipulate and wonder if my judgments on issues are actually correct or not. I had a college professor that made the statement that the Media is the most powerful institution in our government. . .I'm inclined to agree. When I hear the news these days, I hear a lot of opinion and not a lot of fact - and then clarifying what is an out and out lie from the truth is incredibly difficult.
But for this - how heart breaking our Lord must be when a father kills his child? When he kills his grandchildren? When he kills himself? Lord please break my heart in the way that Yours breaks that I might have compassion. . .please help me to hear Your call to pray and remember those who live in such darkness as tortured captives.
Lord have mercy.
It's late, and I have thoughts.Post 11
First off, I'm not upset at my fellow converts. I think it's great that they can relate to Orthodoxy in a unique way. We all should seek that personal connection to the Faith.
However, I truly do not want to continue framing my faith journey as a "convert."
By "convert," I mean it by the worldly definition. Someone who adopts a new belief system and all the accoutrements that go along with it, whether or not they are necessary or even healthy to a newcomer. I do not mean someone who struggles to turn his life over to Christ, which is something we all are, whether we were raised Orthodox or found it later.
In my various religious journeys, I have seen and fallen into the many pits that form when one sees himself as a "convert." Pride and self-justification. Uncharitably comparing a faith I barely know to faiths I know even less. Temptations to add more and more to my prayer rule or my icon wall. Telling people I am a Christian, with hints of triumphalism, instead of showing them in my actions.
I am tired of having to tell people why I "chose" Orthodoxy, as if it were choosing a new smart phone (I've had both conversations this week... oddly similar). I don't believe that God assigns to us different labels throughout our lives. Beneath our sins and temporary circumstances, we are the same essence as when God created us. In a certain respect (and I hope this doesn't sound too delusional), I have always been Orthodox, whether it was as an Orthodox Jew or as a life-long seeker.
I want to meet God as the person I have always been. I want to profess my faith naturally, without labels or qualifications that designate me as someone "special."
This week, in youth group, my co-teacher praised me for coming to church on my own accord, versus the students in the class who came because of their parents. I was very embarrassed. I tried explaining that I think that my parents aren't fundamentally different than their Orthodox parents. They don't practice any religion, but they are good people who raised me so that I could be where I am now. I don't think that my colleague wanted to embarass me, but I felt undeservedly elevated.
I work with my spiritual father to grow in Christ. We work with my unique circumstances. But that work is private and very intimate. In my every day interactions, I would prefer not to have to explain myself to people, or appear to them in some "special" way.
I have admired many of the cradle Orthodox posters here, and I want to be more like them. An internalized and unassuming faith. No need to justify yourself against those you disagree with. Sure, everyone has their baggage and personal issues. I don't think the grass is greener on the other side. But I do think that the grass grows slower and can withstand the winter. In times of drought, there's that... foundation that I just haven't felt when I identify as a convert. I'm always trying to establish myself. I'm never just... established. Not in the "okay, we're all set" sort of way. More in a foundational way. If that makes sense.
From now on, I don't want to come across as a convert. Not just in my interactions with others, but how I view myself. I want to be just Orthodox. I want to grow in the Faith. I want to read more Scriptures and study the Fathers (under my father's guidance). I want to get more involved in ministry. I want to do all the things converts want to do, but I don't want it in the way I've experienced it until now. That way is loaded with false expectations and vainglory.
When I mentioned greeters on one thread on oc.net a priest balked at the idea. That's also an issue (ie. the attitude of priests about how to relate to or help people), and not a small one...
There are some churches who have informal greeters and these are fine. Many are yiayias who keep an eye out for any new person who might be looking for a bible or service book and who just might be having trouble finding the page in the service book.
However, there are also some more evangelical Orthodox Christian churches who have greeters that wear name badges. In some churches, these friendly folks might even be wearing matching suits (dare I say uniforms).
I still remember the sweet lady, who just happened to be the presbytera, and who sat next to me, as I obviously stood out like a sore thumb, and she gently guided me during the service and showed me the place in the service book for the first two or three weeks until I knew what to expect.
I also distinctly remember an older gentleman who was really bothered when this same presbytera tried to help him. He finally said in frustration, "Leave me alone. I came to pray in silence. I'll find my place gradually, but right now I do not need any book."
While some people like to be greeted and almost expect a cake to be delivered to their doorsteps as was done in their last evangelical Protestant church, others will run the other way as they are painfully shy.
This is a great point. Social anxiety is a huge reason why many people don't go to Church. I can completely understand that. I don't think there's any formula for how to deal with this. One of the reasons I stopped going to church as a Protestant was because I was sick and tired of being pressured. And I also feel very uncomfortable in large group settings. I'm much more comfortable conversing privately with just two or three other people. I've never mastered the art of "small talk," and I don't like it when people ask me what I do or how my week has been, etc. But I know they mean well, so I don't fault them. I just never feel comfortable with that kind of thing. Also, I don't like it when people ask me why I haven't been to Church, or when somebody says, "I expect to see you in Church on Sunday." That makes me cringe, because it's exactly the type of thing that made me abandon church as a Protestant. But again, I know these people mean well.
The entire issue of divorce, annulments etc and the way in which the subject is dealt with in the Christian east as opposed to the west is one issue which gets glossed over in debates over ecumenical dialouge. I would argue that it is perhaps as important in the final analysis as a resolution of primacy and any potential role for the Papacy in a theoretical reunited Church. Post 13
Why? Because many (not all) of the 'great theological differences' over which we parse could be viewed as theologoumena (We lived with many of these issues before the schism and communion was not broken such as Original Sin vs. Ancestral Sin and various sacramental formulations.) if the issue of primacy and supremacy could ever be overcome. (I doubt that they can, but...God works in strange ways.) But the rigidity that history has placed on Rome and its teachings on marriage and divorce are such that as we've seen in the past month or so, it is an issue over which the teaching of one side is likely to prevail.
Ours is pastorally sound.
I can cite examples in the two halves of my own community. In the Orthodox half we have many families in which an eccesiastical divorce was granted, one of the parties remarried and the parties and MORE IMPORTANTLY their children are active and involved in the parish community. Sadly, the same is not the case down the street in the Byzantine Catholic Church (like in many eastern US communities it is comprised of the descendents of the same folks from the same villages with the same cultural traditions as can be found in the neighboring Orthodox parish.) At one time that parish was almost as large as ours, today it is a shadow of its former self and my friends there will concede that the harshness of the divorce and remarriage rules are part of their problem.
And the concept that some Catholic writers are advancing that there is a place in the body of the Church for divorced Catholics but with out ever the possibility of partaking in the greatest of all Sacraments - the partaking of the very Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour - is incompresensible to the Orthodox mind. Even among the most severe and dour examples of Orthodox thought (and there are plenty of those out there) the impossiblity of repentance, reconciliation and a return to the fullness of Communion for member of the Church is all but an absurdity.
Where then is the "Message of Mercy" in the west? At least Cardinal Kasper and others are trying.
So whatever happened to this dude? Did he run for the hills once he realized
that the EO ecclesiastical structure in America is full of nosy shills who will bow down to pressure from OC.net and bloggers his ideology stands in opposition to the teachings of Orthodox Christianity? Or did he recant?
Fixed that for you, my Roman Catholic friend.
OC.net had nothing to do with his ultimate censure. If anything, it was the seeming hoards of angry people in Orthodox Facebook groups. This thread, this entire site even, is remarkably tame in contrast to what you can find on there, especially when Heimbach had his moment of fame.
It has nothing to do with bowing to pressure from Facebook or anywhere else. His teachings are antithetical to those of the Church. He publically declared that the Church endorses his teachings. This needed to be publically corrected. Case closed.
An interesting story and apart from the comments on "Jewish commissars" seems devoid of overtly white nationalist talking points.
And some of this kind of rhetoric:
General Wenck exemplified the virtues and values of a European man and of a Christian, we must do our best to follow in his footsteps and to be willing to give it all for Faith, family, and folk.
We all know the "dog whistle" meaning of such language to segregationists and those who otherwise revere the Nazis, however unobjectionable it might be if taken simply at face value. I'm sure that was his intention. "See, 'white nationalism' and segregation are not all that bad. They can be compatible with Orthodoxy”. Sorry Matt, no sale.
Maybe someone can explain to me this situation ... why is a convicted sexual predator like Fr. Adam Metropolous is still a priest? At least as far as I can tell, there has been no Internet hew and cry about excommunicating or defrocking him or whatever, nor has there been a press release announcing his excommunication posted at the church site or the archdiocese site.
There’s no comparison, and it’s disingenuous to inject this into the conversation. Now you’ve got people on here actually debating the merits of racism vs. pedophilia when that’s absolutely not the point.
I think it’s a forgone conclusion that Fr. Adam will be defrocked. If you want to start and internet hue and cry about it, by all means, feel free, but don’t act as if those who were up in arms about Heimbach weren’t justified to do so. I’m sure there would have been an internet hue and cry if Fr. Adam had – like Heimbach – tried to use the Church to legitimize his sickness and publically distorted Orthodox theology and history to make it out as if the Church supported what he was doing. Then, a public clarification that Orthodoxy unequivocally rejected such – as it totally and unequivocally rejects Heimbach’s heterodox teaching – would be necessary.
On the other hand, Heimbach committed no crime. Just guilty of having some inconvenient political views. That's all it took to publicly run him out of the Church.
Wrong. Heimbach publically assigned his “inconvenient political views” – that is to say the heresy of ecclesiastical segregation – to the Orthodox Church. That’s all it took to have the Church publically renounce that spiritual sickness in order to clarify its own views and publically call Matthew to repentance and reconciliation.
So why does Heimbach get an instant and public retribution by the Church and Fr. Adam gets brushed under the rug?
Is it just that the Antiochians hate racism a lot more than the Greeks hate pederasts?
Heimbach merited an instant public retribution by the Church because he made a public declaration that the Church subscribed to and endorsed his sickness. Injecting the Fr. Adam situation into the equation in no way invalidates this.
I'd take 1,000 Heimbachs before I took one Fr. Adam. I guess that makes me crazy.
It’s not a real choice that the Church has to make. The Church doesn’t have to accept 1000 segregationist heretics in order to eject one pedophile. It’s intellectually dishonest to assert otherwise. Thank God the Church publically denounced Heimbach’s views and made it clear that there can never be room for such in Orthodoxy.
I didn't say that. Obviously. What I said is Fr. Adam's pederasty is much worse than Heimbach's politics. But the Interwebs treated Heimbach much worse than they did Fr. Adam.
Perhaps because Heimbach used the internet as a platform to espouse his sickness and lie about the Church endorsing it. You can be sure that if Fr. Adam had done the same, there would have been even more of an outcry.
Truth be told, the Internet treated Heimbach the same way Fr. Adam treats his parishioners.
To compare the innocent victims of pedophilia to a public figure who brought public scorn on himself like Heimbach is downright insulting to said victims. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I'll never be great enough to just come up with a line like this. What's the point of living?
For me, this thread wasn't ever about racism, it was about the Church's reaction to an individual's political views.
It's not about the Church's reaction to an individual's political views and it never was. Political views have nothing to do with it. Publically declaring that the Orthodox Church subscribes to heresies it does not endorse and perverting Orthodox history and theology to support those heresies warrants a public response. It's intellectually dishonest to pretend that Heimbach was just a guy in the pews who was singled out by his priest because of his politics and not a public figure making public statements which defamed the Church.
Fr. Adam violently touched specific people while posing as a cleric.* The lives of those people and their relationship with the Church will never be the same. Lord have mercy -- he touches the Body and Blood with those same hands!
And so for you to compare Heimbach to those poor children and some people who made public complaints about his public actions to a child molesting priest is disgusting. I know you're prone to hyperbole, but I've lost a ton of respect for you here. What you said - the statement William thinks is so awesome - is downright sick. I honestly expected better from you.
Again, you apparently can't read and you don't know what you're talking about.
An ethnically-based church is not a segregated church. Your parish has an "ethnic" title; "Coptic."
Which refers to our liturgical rite and language. Heimbach was calling for something different. Go back and watch the video of his debate with the black separatist. Go back and read his blog. He clearly and repeatedly says he wants whites in their own churches and blacks in their own churches. He believes America should be divided up along racial lines and calls for the disintegration of the country into independent racially-based enclaves each with their separate racially-based ecclesiastical structures. He says blacks should not be worshipping with whites, but rather...
I believe black Christians should be in their black Church’s, with black priests, having black kids, going to black Christian schools, etc.
He tries to used ethnically-based jurisdictions in the Orthodox Church - a canonical anomaly - to justify racially-based segregation in the United States. It doesn't work.
You have read your own presumptions into Heimbach's statement.
No, I haven't. It's clearly there and right in front of your face.
As an Orthodox Christian I believe in the separation of races into ethnically based Church’s. That is why even in Orthodoxy there is for instance a Greek, Russian, Romanian, Serbian, etc Orthodox Church. Regional and racial identity is a fundamental principle of Christianity, must to the dismay of Leftists.
Anyway, thanks for replying.
And thank you for consistently embarrassing yourself, all for our entertainment.
You might think you're defending Heimbach, but you're actually not, because you're misrepresenting and reinterpreting his views.
Victory tastes good.
That's just your pacifier.