ROBOTRON, SEE THIS -------^ AND THIS:
There is a lot of criticism and conflict and reason within the Orthodox Church. It sounds from all your posts you have had a rather unbalanced sampling.
Hang in there. I like your style!
Thanks for your supportive statement. I really am trying..., perhaps way too hard.
Could you re-post the above link. It just takes me back to the forum.
All these subjective discussions seem irrelevant to me at the moment.
Anything could be anything, when your statements are unprovable in the absolute.
Quoting the myth-books, the bible, or the church canons?
It seems all about what audience you are trying to please (what faith you proclaim)
than any absolute essence about anything stated in them.
My issue about converting to Orthodoxy being a "logical step" was meant as a categorical (absolute, objective) statement.
I do not believe it is possible to ever reach that conclusion (logically, that is).
I'm not saying if it is right or wrong to convert or not; I just cannot see it as a "logical step".
If anyone on this board believes that it is, please tell me how it is? I truly don't know (but I'd like to) [It would really help.]
It seems to me that it could only ever be a subjective choice to convert. Not a "logical step".
My only question all along is what is the absolute essence of being Orthodox?
Being born into an Orthodox family that baptizes you as an infant is One of them.
Are there any other or none other?
I see all this Hyperdox Herman stuff that appears to be cradles lording their superiority over converts.
The Original Christians were all converts so this is a violation of Matt 28:19-20 "Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
Neither the cradles nor the converts seem to know the essential essence of Orthodoxy.
That's what Hyperdox Herman says to me. This is not for cradles to be proud of, or to make fun of.
Why not at least follow the bible and set an example then, instead of making fun of those you are supposed to be teaching?
(I understand that Hyperdox Herman may have been meant as a joke, and that part is okay; but that's not what I mean.)
Here are 3 specific examples of what I'm trying to say:
1. The reversal of Hyperdox Herman (that I'm guilty of myself) came up in the Robert Hanssen case, with him being in Opus Dei.
I'll admit to not knowing what Opus Dei even is, but to be a RC Clergy you must be Celibate and that is a major sacrifice.
It does not seem normal for an ordinary parishioner to be that obsessed with the Catholic Church, unless you are clergy material.
It did not add anything to my personal appraisal of him to be that obsessed with the catholic religion as an ordinary person.
It seemed more symptomatic of a problem than a good thing. Perhaps that is what Hyperdox Herman means? I don't know.
Most Catholics I know serve under obligation more than by personal choice. (Not meant to offend anyone, sorry.)
I would just have recommended to him that he is not scoring any points by pretending to be a zealot.
2. I just ask for the "bare minimum" of Orthodoxy, which got criticism here, but no real clarification that I remember.
What is the "bare minimum" of Orthodoxy?
Here is my 2nd example then. I was in the hospital and happened to be visited by 2 Orthodox Priests there (for the 1st time)
who showed up dressed as Orthodox priests.
Either coincident to that or right after they left, a Roman Catholic Priests showed up, and I asked him for communion.
To my shock, (for the 1st and only time ever), he actually challenged me about whether I was Roman Catholic and he didn't believe me.
The way he asked me to prove that I was RC was to recite the "Our Father" prayer.
This is perhaps what I mean about the "essence" or "bare minimum".
(Just to clarify, it was not the prayer he was after but the specific pronunciation of the words he cared about. You know, saying the prayer the exact Roman Catholic Way, that would have mattered.)
How can you prove what you are, short of presenting a baptismal certificate to a priest that challenges you?
I recited the "Our Father" prayer that I had memorized as a child, and he gave me communion.
What would an Orthodox Priests ask of you, to prove you are Orthodox?
3. This is the main example that I have which causes me problems about calling Orthodox conversion a "logical step".
I will quote this directly out of the posting rules, since that's where the issue came up for me:Academic Discourse -- Practically speaking, academic discussion means not referring to figures on your side as "St. so and so" while referring to figures of the other party as "the heretic so and so."
This gets to the essence of what the problem is.
How is it possible for the determination of whether someone is a Saint or a Heretic to be about which side you are on?
It should be about an objective evaluation of the Saint, themselves.
It seems to me that everything about Orthodoxy is in the eye of the beholder (which side you are on).
What is the basic essence of being Orthodox?
Is there anything that is not completely subjective?
Can you only be born Orthodox?
If so, then how can you say you are right to someone who was born Roman Catholic,
if you have no available tools to accept them into your own church?
I apologize in advance to anyone I might have offended by this post.
I'm just seeking the truth, and don't really know how to find it anywhere.
Thanks for you help. Positive comments are always appreciated.