Author Topic: could this be a mormon plot  (Read 9870 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online RobS

  • Formerly "nothing"
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,169
  • Jurisdiction: The thrilling romance of Holy Orthodoxy
Re: could this be a mormon plot
« Reply #90 on: November 22, 2014, 08:42:35 PM »
Some historians, like Rodney Stark, have argued that in the next 100 years Mormonism may well become a major world religion with hundreds of members. Stark is hardly an apologist for Mormonism, either.

In general, having "laughably silly" beliefs doesn't necessarily preclude groups from growing and gaining influence. Because Mormons (along with Jehovah's Witnesses, Adventists, radical Pentecostals, etc.) have their own methods for evangelizing aggressively, they can grow much faster than more "establishment" churches which often refrain from doing so.

The Mormon founders themselves envisioned a future where Mormons take the lead in "saving America". Many think Glenn Beck's entire approach to politics is based on this idea.
Well I wasn't trying to single out only Mormonism, I think its just as weird as any other religion or Christian denomination.

I did get a laugh at a historian predicting the future. Maybe he's right, but I just find it to be very unlikely. And really historians should stick to storytelling, because that's what history is.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2014, 08:43:02 PM by nothing »
"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death (μελεπᾷν ἀποθνήσκειν)."

— Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment XI

Modernist thinking and being consists of nothing but uncritical acceptance.

Offline LenInSebastopol

  • Dimly Illumined
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,595
Re: could this be a mormon plot
« Reply #91 on: November 23, 2014, 10:35:42 AM »
Well, Good Morning, Sunshine!
Like the old joke: What's the definition of a sadist? Some one who is nice to a masochist! So let the flame wars continue!
(actually, if any others are still watching this, pray for them as well, as we are leading them to perdition. We should either get a room or step into a ring)

You know, Antonius, I sleep, I rest and wake up ready to go at it again. A day away does wonders. I recommend it.
Lord, give me strength in my old age to help the unjust, and since many, as here, find themselves to be wounded, give them strength as well.

You play the victim well, Nikolas, as so many in this generation, so please let me give you insight, if you are capable of receiving such.

And yet again, as done so often in this age, you wish to have words suited to your choice rather than common definitions or meanings. Could it be that such erudition leaves one as Don Quixote, living in the tower of the internet, so that all they know is themselves and the spins placed upon their medium of exchange? In your case, Yes, so clear your mind. Forget your 2500 or so posts and deal with a simple one.

Inherent in the base notion of "apophatic" is the ad hominem approach to demonstrate, or actually alter, a point, though the base definition is clear,  yet for some reason you bring  it only into theology, via an Ortho-Wiki definition ::) Oh, wait, now I see another diatribe (and wounded warrior) since I used a non-Orthodox definition of that word IN an Orthodox setting! Lick your wounds as you seek justice for this offense, young man.
Oh, and as for that definition, while away yesterday enjoying a lecture from Fr. John Beher, he too brought up that word, theology. It seems his erudition is derived from all the work he has sweated  and worked for over the years and from what I gather he agrees with you! It is not that he is in error, as you, but rather he started with the base definition and derived his notions. You simply start with such notion and proceed to make invalid and meaningless points! If we cannot agree on such base issues as with the meaning of words, then I concede this discussion, however I urge you to remain not only on the internet but never leave this forum to join another. A
Actually, forgive me again, as you really do need to leave not only this forum, but the internet as it is obvious this is the only place you have meaning, and this is an illusion.

For example: http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/god-and-mankind-comparative-religions.html
is not to close to your definition of Comparative Theology, as I see only the 'Comparative" in the title, but as in all "comparative" academic approaches, judgment is left out of the game.  Now I know you wish to tell me you did not judge in your initial response, but your other posts in this thread belie you.

I know you will not conceded that the above is a poor start of any attempt to educate you, but try and humor me a moment, difficult as it may be for you.
By using your definition of theology and thus your justification, you can call Mormons, and all others, false and "sick" as they too " live our theology". As we can only see how one "lives our theology" their way of "living", producing, and giving examples like hospitals, schools,  a whole state AND running guys for the highest office in the greatest country on Earth, well it must be greater than Orthodoxy, as they do all that "live" stuff so well! So, Rabbi, God loves and favors them more, since they "live theology" and can prove it in this kingdom-moving-toward heaven.
IOW, your definitions, like of "theology" and "apophatic" as well as others used in this exchange,  have meanings in it not given, but applied, and poorly at that.
For the slow amongst us, as can have agreements on words, we can have some type of meaningful exchange; absent that....phaaa!

You applied your "unfair" to my original post on this issue. You claim to seek some notion of "fairness" but only by definitions you wish.  And as your attempts rest in the divine, (really,? a definition from Ortho-Wiki?)  there is no justice for your victim-hood here on Earth, which further justifies your castigation and vitriol of those that use YOU, the high and mighty (not simply your post to make a point; how dare we pipsqueaks with only months of Orthodoxy) and so your practice of victim-hood is as poorly worn as most young folks wear clothes now-a-days.

Thanks for the insight I got into my own rotten soul per our exchange, as well as the pop video. I've not listen to bubble gum in scores of years.

This thread is still going?

Mostly due to flame wars, male egos, and seeing who can have "the last word" as well as other worn out phrases based on idle chatter.

Don't be so hard on yourself, Len.   :P

"Nothing to see hear, folks, move along".

And yet you can't!   :laugh:

As it is, I lay down.

We shall see.

Still not sleepy yet I guess, Rabbi? Hence, the lengthy diatribe below despite your declarations that you were done with this thread, that it was "idle chatter" kept alive only by "male egos" and the "desire to have the last word".

As you are compelled to have the last word, go and do, as you can do no other.

Are you looking in a mirror as you type this?

I wish to thank you as you have expanded my vocabulary with "apophatic" and I see we are both practitioners of this rhetorical form, especially in the ad hominem derivative; although I trust denial of such is forthcoming.

No need for a denial, Len.  Apophatic theology is applied to God, not to men, so it can't be applied ad hominem.  As example of apophatic theology - saying what God is not - would be something like "God is not a man from the planet Kolob".

The word "routine" applied to your perception of transparency "Fool for Christ" is especially wounding. Well done, sir.

And your characterization of me as "self-righteous", "manipulative", et cetera, was meant to be complimentary?  Don't dish it out, Len...

As it is tiresome for me at this point

So you keep saying, and yet you continue your attempts to rebut at length.

allow a couple of parting clarifications: it was not Plato, it was the the physics notion of trying to tie the general to the particular, but that is a tempest in a teapot now.

We'll see if they're parting.  At any rate, I don't accept your argument that an assessment of a system of belief is necessarily a condemnation of all who subscribe to it, however it's couched.

As to Comparative Theology and textbooks, I am familiar with such via college classes over 45 years ago, but I see very little here, if any, in this forum of the objective approach that those texts utilized;

It's here, Len, provided of course that you don't choose to read meanings into people's words that aren't there in order to "enflame your passions" and flaunt your (self-)righteous indignation before the world.

present company excepted, of course.

Another veiled jab, eh Len?  And then you wonder why things don't grind to a halt after your "apologies" mingled with and followed by repetitions of the initial accusation are issued.

A: You're a jerk.

B: What?

A: I'm sorry, I shouldn't have called you a jerk.

B: Apology accepted.

A: Thanks, jerk.

As you pointed out, using, in this case, my recent baptismal date as a foil to "know" me in asking such

I'm not claiming to "know" you, Len.  I was simply remarking on the fact that you are quite quick to deride certain thought processes - such as declaring what God is not - as being "Western" (with the implication that they are somehow flawed and deficient) when you've only just entered the Eastern Church yourself.  Especially when folks in the East have been making definitive declarations of what God is not since at least the time of "God is not a man that He should lie" which might be extended to "God is not a man that He should live on the planet Kolob and get it on with lots of ladies".

is that a bit of the kettle-pot-black device?

Not at all.

But I am sure you understood your two questions to me vis-a-vis the intention of your query, as I did not.

My questions in that bit of our delightful back-and-forth were:

Quote
And are there no declarative statements concerning dogma emanating from the ancient East?


and

Quote
Was any and every theological opinion met with an agnostic shrug of the shoulders?

In other words, did the Eastern Fathers ever reject anyone's conception of God?

As to definitions, I always understood -"ology" as in theology to mean "the study of". I see your use of the expanded version is justified by calling down saints and others, presumably theologians.

I'm just saying that I'm not the first person to use the term theology in that sense.  In fact, my use of the term in that way is predicated upon the work and statements of the men I cited.

Ok, so I gather that justification negates (ah, that apophatic device) or alters the dictionary approach to discussion here? 

There is sometimes more to a word than its simple definition in a dictionary reveals, Len.

Or is your "knowledge of God" by definition simply exclude all others, like Mormons, since their knowledge of him or the false-ness of him (or is their no false statements in such, especially in light of "living one's theology"?), justify those with "true knowledge of the True God"? If "living one's theology" is "measurable" and if Mormons have "more" stuff, like hospitals, schools, and other visible means of spreading their "life in..." then they have a better theology? Absurd!

Yes, what you've typed here is absurd, Len.  What's more, it is not at all what I was contending.  Nice attempt at a straw man though.

Tired, I am and again, we part ways.

But for how long?  That's the question.

I thank you for the prayer for intelligence, however as a comedian quipped, and the human condition shows, "Ya' can't fix stupid".

I believe they call him Tater Salad.  ;)

You take it from here on out, Antonious Nicolas.

I'll take it as far as I can before your inevitable next rejoinder.

Prayers have been said with your name in them.



Sorry, you can't Steal My Sunshine - Len;)
God is The Creator of All Free Beings

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: could this be a mormon plot
« Reply #92 on: November 23, 2014, 01:41:14 PM »
I judge the quality of forum posts based on the ability to say the most with the fewest words.

You failed.
God bless!

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,236
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: could this be a mormon plot
« Reply #93 on: November 23, 2014, 03:18:26 PM »
I knew it, Len.  I knew you wouldn't be able to follow your own advice and "let it go".  :)

Well, Good Morning, Sunshine!

The Earth says, "Hello!"

Like the old joke: What's the definition of a sadist? Some one who is nice to a masochist!

I guess that'd make me the Marquis de Sade then, because you're definitely the one taking a beating here.

So let the flame wars continue!

Flame on, Rabbi.

(actually, if any others are still watching this, pray for them as well, as we are leading them to perdition. We should either get a room or step into a ring)

I have no interest in getting a room with you, Len, but anytime you wanna step into a ring...

You know, Antonius, I sleep, I rest and wake up ready to go at it again. A day away does wonders. I recommend it.

In other words, you see you're losing the debate so you declare the thread to be idle chatter and announce you're done with it, but your pride has been wounded, the fact that you cannot get the last word continues to sting, and so your unjustifiably inflated ego drags you back to the battlefield to take another drubbing.

Lord, give me strength in my old age to help the unjust, and since many, as here, find themselves to be wounded, give them strength as well.

 ::) You are truly a myrmidon of melodrama, Len.

You play the victim well, Nikolas

Not as well as you play the faux-Fool for Christ and wannabe prophet of the interwebs.

Besides, I'm not playing the victim, Len.  Just reminding you not to start stuff you can't finish.  You picked the wrong post to try to make an example of and now you continue to humiliate yourself because your compulsive nature won't allow you to stop replying after every rambling argument you've advanced has been thoroughly refuted.  Sort of like how Trisagion ate your lunch in the other thread but you can't stop prattling on there either.

as so many in this generation

Which generation would that be, Len?

so please let me give you insight, if you are capable of receiving such.

I'm waiting.  You've given me none as yet.

And yet again, as done so often in this age, you wish to have words suited to your choice rather than common definitions or meanings.

Or it could just be that I've read some books you haven't that use the term in a way you're not familiar with.  Or it could be that despite the fact that you're so dismissive of "Western" modes of thought that you haven't actually acquainted yourself with the sort of Eastern Christian perspective informing my use of the term in question.

Could it be that such erudition leaves one as Don Quixote, living in the tower of the internet, so that all they know is themselves and the spins placed upon their medium of exchange?

Could it be that you're out of your depth and that your original premise has no merit and has been debunked, and yet your ego won't allow you to refrain from making yet another garbled, longwinded, and ultimately meaningless reply and so here we are yet again?

In your case, Yes, so clear your mind.

But then we'd both be empty-headed.

Forget your 2500 or so posts

At this rate, you'll catch up to me soon enough.

and deal with a simple one.

I'm dealing with a "simple one" every time I engage with you.

Inherent in the base notion of "apophatic" is the ad hominem approach to demonstrate, or actually alter, a point, though the base definition is clear,  yet for some reason you bring  it only into theology

Because that's the context in which we're using the term and the only way in which it's applicable to the discussion, your attempts to muddy the waters aside.

via an Ortho-Wiki definition

Yes, Len, Orthodox Wiki, because when I referenced the theologians who utilized the terminology in question the way I did, you had no clue who they were.  Therefore, something more elementary was in order.

Oh, wait, now I see another diatribe (and wounded warrior)

You must have a lot of mirrors in your house.

since I used a non-Orthodox definition of that word IN an Orthodox setting!

In an attempt at obfustication, since you're losing the argument big time.

Lick your wounds as you seek justice for this offense, young man.

Wounds?  Len, other than your attempts at personal insults, you've managed no "wounds" whatsoever.  You haven't been able to either defend your own position or discredit any aspect of mine in any meaningful way, so now you're throwing a fit like a child.  You're the walking exemplar of the maxim that age doesn't necessarily come with wisdom.

Oh, and as for that definition, while away yesterday enjoying a lecture from Fr. John Beher, he too brought up that word, theology. It seems his erudition is derived from all the work he has sweated  and worked for over the years and from what I gather he agrees with you! It is not that he is in error, as you, but rather he started with the base definition and derived his notions. You simply start with such notion and proceed to make invalid and meaningless points!

He agrees with me and yet I'm in error and he's not?  Because I'm trouncing you in this debate?  No, I started from the same place as Fr. John using the same source material.  I'm very familiar with his perspective on the subject and I know that our positions are virtually identical.  My point just went over your head because a lot of this is still new to you, and yet, despite your advanced years, your desire to appear wise in the eyes of a bunch of strangers on the internet won't allow you to acknowledge this and so you cast about for peripheral definitions to the terms in question to justify your unjustifiable position.  It's the same thing you're doing in the other thread in which Trisagion is eating your lunch, the thread in which you're contending that we have to pretend to be agnostic about the errors of Roman Catholicism even as you're contending we have to be agnostic about the errors of Mormonism here.  In both instances, you've taken up untenable positions and yet your arrogance won't allow you to simply acknowledge that you're wrong and out of your depth, so you continue to throw up rambling smokescreens in order to obscure the issue.

If we cannot agree on such base issues as with the meaning of words, then I concede this discussion

And yet you'll predictably manage another rambling, ineffectual reply.

however I urge you to remain not only on the internet but never leave this forum to join another. A
Actually, forgive me again, as you really do need to leave not only this forum, but the internet as it is obvious this is the only place you have meaning, and this is an illusion.

Yeah, this is a favorite ad hominem argument of those getting their butts kicked in webforum debates.  "Well, you may be pwning me here (look it up, if that's also beyond the scope of your experience due to generational disconnect) but you don't have a life outside the internet."  Whatever.  Think that if you like, Len.  You don't know who I am or what I do outside of this forum.  All you know is I'm the guy you haven't been able to best in this discussion.  Based on the enormous amount of venom and vitriol dripping from every one of your posts, it obviously means a lot to you too.  Your "passions are enflamed" and you're taking this very personally.  You've declared you were going to "let it go" and you've advised others to "move along, nothing to see here" but you can't and you won't.  You'll even reply to this, and more caustically than ever.  You keep referencing your age and the number of years you have on me.  Chronologically, perhaps, but you're not what I'd call a wise old man, someone I could learn from.  Rather, you stoop lower than folks a quarter of your age on these boards.  At least they have an excuse for their immaturity.  Maybe you should grow up, Len, and stop taking debates on a webforum so seriously.

For example: http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/god-and-mankind-comparative-religions.html
is not to close to your definition of Comparative Theology, as I see only the 'Comparative" in the title, but as in all "comparative" academic approaches, judgment is left out of the game.
 

Actually, Len, I've read that book.  Ogden compares and contrasts as I did.  So far as judgment goes, he - like me - doesn't assign anyone to hell.  He has to be politically correct in academia though, so he can't make any definitive statements like, say, there is only one True God and He is not Odin, Thor, Zeus, or the god of Kolob.

Now I know you wish to tell me you did not judge in your initial response, but your other posts in this thread belie you.

I made simple statements of fact, Len.  You yourself acknowledged that you read judgment into them that wasn't there, so your words belie you on this score.  Your wounded ego and an immaturity uncharacteristic of someone so long in the tooth won't allow you to let it drop though.

I know you will not conceded that the above is a poor start of any attempt to educate you, but try and humor me a moment, difficult as it may be for you.

Len, you'd better obtain the rudiments of an education for yourself before you attempt to educate anyone else.

By using your definition of theology and thus your justification, you can call Mormons, and all others, false and "sick" as they too " live our theology". As we can only see how one "lives our theology" their way of "living", producing, and giving examples like hospitals, schools,  a whole state AND running guys for the highest office in the greatest country on Earth, well it must be greater than Orthodoxy, as they do all that "live" stuff so well! So, Rabbi, God loves and favors them more, since they "live theology" and can prove it in this kingdom-moving-toward heaven.

And again, you totally misapprehend all I've been saying.  I'm not an adherent of the Prosperity Gospel ethos, Len.  I don't believe that any of what you've cited above is proof of God's favor or of the truth of a given system.  This isn't what I mean at all by living our theology.  Go back and re-read the post, and while you're at it, watch your Fr. John Behr lecture again and look into the theologians I've cited.  St. Seraphim lived his theology and he certainly didn't have a mansion and a yacht out in the woods or aspire to the highest office in the land.  All of that means nothing, Rabbi.  Nothing at all.

IOW, your definitions, like of "theology" and "apophatic" as well as others used in this exchange,  have meanings in it not given, but applied, and poorly at that.
For the slow amongst us, as can have agreements on words, we can have some type of meaningful exchange; absent that....phaaa!

In other words, you're struggling to keep up.  You had to look the terms up in the first place and were familiar with only there most pedestrian definitions (and I'm not talking about foot traffic here, in case you're confused again).  Then, when your own research confirms that the terms can be applied in the way I apply them, your ego still won't allow you to acknowledge that you are absolutely the one getting an education here.  The only lesson you're teaching me is that there is no fool like an old fool.

You applied your "unfair" to my original post on this issue. You claim to seek some notion of "fairness" but only by definitions you wish.  And as your attempts rest in the divine, (really,? a definition from Ortho-Wiki?)  there is no justice for your victim-hood here on Earth, which further justifies your castigation and vitriol of those that use YOU, the high and mighty (not simply your post to make a point; how dare we pipsqueaks with only months of Orthodoxy) and so your practice of victim-hood is as poorly worn as most young folks wear clothes now-a-days.

You were wrong.  Period.  You read meaning into my words that wasn't there, and what is more you attempted to do so in a grandiose, pompous way which makes it appear as if you consider yourself something of a web prophet and a guru to be respected.  You then proceeded to prove that you were neither at all, but rather a petty, vitriolic individual who - even after acknowledging that he was wrong - was possessed of such an unjustifiably enormous ego that he could not bow out of the discussion but continued to flail about in an ever more desperate, incoherent, self-righteous and venomous manner, down to the present post.  I'm sure the next one will be even more haughty, crass, and cretinous.

Thanks for the insight I got into my own rotten soul per our exchange,

What good does acknowledging this do while continuing to indulge in the same behavior by persisting in this unprofitable discussion?

as well as the pop video. I've not listen to bubble gum in scores of years.

Glad you enjoyed it.  It was as eloquent and sophisticated as your entire contribution to this discussion.

You're incoherent babbling aside, you're attempts at muddying the waters won't earn you any points here.  The main thrust of your argument has been defeated: we don't have to pretend that Mormons might be Christians or that they might be worshipping the true God.  They aren't and they don't.  That doesn't mean we're condemning them to hell either.  You had that all wrong, as you've already admitted, but you can't let that stand.  You have to get the last word.  So all you've got left is your wannabe web prophet and fake Fool for Christ schtick, so you're laying it on thick, along with a healthy dose of incoherent babble fit for a bottle of Dr. Bronner's soap.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2014, 03:35:57 PM by Antonious Nikolas »
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,188
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: Candle-lighting Cross Kisser
Re: could this be a mormon plot
« Reply #94 on: November 23, 2014, 11:51:21 PM »
I judge the quality of forum posts based on the ability to say the most with the fewest words.

You failed.

Antonious is very helpful with his line-by-line responses.  It's much appreciated.
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline Minnesotan

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,329
  • Milo Thatch is the ONLY Milo for me. #FreeAtlantis
Re: could this be a mormon plot
« Reply #95 on: November 23, 2014, 11:58:03 PM »
I knew it, Len.  I knew you wouldn't be able to follow your own advice and "let it go".  :)

I'm not going to be posting as much on OC.Net as before. I might stop in once in a while though. But I've come to realize that real life is more important.

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: could this be a mormon plot
« Reply #96 on: November 24, 2014, 12:00:27 AM »
I knew it, Len.  I knew you wouldn't be able to follow your own advice and "let it go".  :)


I am entranced by this gif.
God bless!

Offline Minnesotan

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,329
  • Milo Thatch is the ONLY Milo for me. #FreeAtlantis
Re: could this be a mormon plot
« Reply #97 on: November 24, 2014, 12:02:43 AM »
As we can only see how one "lives our theology" their way of "living", producing, and giving examples like hospitals, schools,  a whole state AND running guys for the highest office in the greatest country on Earth, well it must be greater than Orthodoxy, as they do all that "live" stuff so well! So, Rabbi, God loves and favors them more, since they "live theology" and can prove it in this kingdom-moving-toward heaven.

I've heard apologists for Calvinism (such as Dr. Vishal Mangalwadi) use examples like that to argue in favor of Calvinism being the truth. "Calvinist countries are richest, therefore God favors them the most, which must mean it's the true faith".

Calvinism is growing in many third-world countries, particularly in places like Indonesia, China and Mangalwadi's native India. I suspect one of the reasons for the appeal is a sort of theological cargo cult mentality; at least, some news articles I've read have implied this. They want to be like Americans and have all the stuff Americans have, they see Calvinism as the faith that "made America", so they become Calvinists. It may not be the "name it and claim it" Pentecostal version of prosperity gospel, nor is it liberation theology, but it has a lot of features in common with both.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2014, 12:03:40 AM by Minnesotan »
I'm not going to be posting as much on OC.Net as before. I might stop in once in a while though. But I've come to realize that real life is more important.

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,188
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: Candle-lighting Cross Kisser
Re: could this be a mormon plot
« Reply #98 on: November 24, 2014, 12:13:36 AM »
I knew it, Len.  I knew you wouldn't be able to follow your own advice and "let it go".  :)


I am entranced by this gif.
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,990
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • St. Gregory the Theologian Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox (former WR)
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Boston
Re: could this be a mormon plot
« Reply #99 on: November 24, 2014, 10:05:48 AM »
I think Len and Maria should get married.

PP
"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,236
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: could this be a mormon plot
« Reply #100 on: November 24, 2014, 10:08:01 AM »
I judge the quality of forum posts based on the ability to say the most with the fewest words.

You failed.

Antonious is very helpful with his line-by-line responses.  It's much appreciated.

Thanks, hecma925.  Tris was addressing this post to Len though, just like when he said:

I don't understand anything of what you just said.

We have a theme going here.  :)

As we can only see how one "lives our theology" their way of "living", producing, and giving examples like hospitals, schools,  a whole state AND running guys for the highest office in the greatest country on Earth, well it must be greater than Orthodoxy, as they do all that "live" stuff so well! So, Rabbi, God loves and favors them more, since they "live theology" and can prove it in this kingdom-moving-toward heaven.

I've heard apologists for Calvinism (such as Dr. Vishal Mangalwadi) use examples like that to argue in favor of Calvinism being the truth. "Calvinist countries are richest, therefore God favors them the most, which must mean it's the true faith".

Calvinism is growing in many third-world countries, particularly in places like Indonesia, China and Mangalwadi's native India. I suspect one of the reasons for the appeal is a sort of theological cargo cult mentality; at least, some news articles I've read have implied this. They want to be like Americans and have all the stuff Americans have, they see Calvinism as the faith that "made America", so they become Calvinists. It may not be the "name it and claim it" Pentecostal version of prosperity gospel, nor is it liberation theology, but it has a lot of features in common with both.

You're right on the money, Minnesotan, and I'm sure you realize that this isn't what an Orthodox Christian means at all when he speaks of "living his theology".  We're not looking for material prosperity as "proof" to validate our belief system.  The notion that the ability of a given sect to build things or aspire to positions of power means that they somehow have "God's favor" is ridiculous.  How many evil empires and false prophets have achieved great temporal power and tremendous material wealth?

I hope you'd also agree that the notion of separating theology from faith (as in the statement, "we do not 'live our theology' Do Muslims live their faith or their study of Allah? One does not live their study of God, but reflect their faith in God. IOW theology is not faith") is fallacious and creates a false and unnecessary dichotomy alien to Orthodoxy which asserts that:

Quote
Theology, mysticism, spirituality, moral rules, worship, art: these things must not be kept in separate compartments. Doctrine cannot be understood unless it is prayed: a theologian, said Evagrius, is one who knows how to pray, and he who prays in spirit and in truth is by that very act a theologian (On Prayer, 60 (P. G. 79, 1180B)). - Bishop Kallistos Ware

Or to quote St. Evagrius directly:

Quote
If you are a theologian you truly pray.  If you truly pray you are a theologian.
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline LenInSebastopol

  • Dimly Illumined
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,595
Re: could this be a mormon plot
« Reply #101 on: November 26, 2014, 09:09:38 AM »
As we can only see how one "lives our theology" their way of "living", producing, and giving examples like hospitals, schools,  a whole state AND running guys for the highest office in the greatest country on Earth, well it must be greater than Orthodoxy, as they do all that "live" stuff so well! So, Rabbi, God loves and favors them more, since they "live theology" and can prove it in this kingdom-moving-toward heaven.

I've heard apologists for Calvinism (such as Dr. Vishal Mangalwadi) use examples like that to argue in favor of Calvinism being the truth. "Calvinist countries are richest, therefore God favors them the most, which must mean it's the true faith".

Calvinism is growing in many third-world countries, particularly in places like Indonesia, China and Mangalwadi's native India. I suspect one of the reasons for the appeal is a sort of theological cargo cult mentality; at least, some news articles I've read have implied this. They want to be like Americans and have all the stuff Americans have, they see Calvinism as the faith that "made America", so they become Calvinists. It may not be the "name it and claim it" Pentecostal version of prosperity gospel, nor is it liberation theology, but it has a lot of features in common with both.

Friend of mine (gasp) has one of those MDivs from St. Vlads, did a study on Calvinism and tells me it is the "perfect" religion if we were bees or ants and had no free will. Seems they "sum it up" to the point of "perfection" and one is damned or saved no matter what. That could be appealing to some, besides didn't Calvin have some thing to do with prostitution and its sanctions? Or is that internet chatter?
God is The Creator of All Free Beings

Offline LenInSebastopol

  • Dimly Illumined
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,595
Re: could this be a mormon plot
« Reply #102 on: November 26, 2014, 11:15:31 AM »
Antonius, took a couple of days to do that "live" thingy, but again, after a short refreshing time, we can get back at it. As I vainly attempt to cut the verbosity, since quantity is appreciated over quality, we shall fly over the non-salient points to see if one can stop staring at the shadows and come into the light, painful as you find it.
Yes, it is pride that brings us back to have at it, but at least it is not foolish as these exchanges can bring more light than heat, I pray.

You are right,  I do have a passion for melodrama, but then as an old guy, I've read more than Hemingway and find passion in expression.
I was not aware that another (Trisagion) "ate my lunch" in some other thread; if you can point to such, it would be interesting. I am barely getting this internet-forum-thingy down. I took me far to long how to intersperse the "quote" thingy between sections, thus I find this a whole lot less tedious and time consuming simply to answer your jabs in this fashion.
Actually, to help, it would be simpler to cut to the essentials of each post rather than jab here and there, no? I see you are good at it and if I live long enough maybe after 2500 posts I can learn to do it quickly, or if I am that interested. Like another posted in this thread, the more words, the more boring! As such, I'll bet you are a pill, as in "for sleep".

As for "picking the wrong post", I guess my faith is not that strong either. Seems to me we "were meant to be" here and now in this missive, no?
If anything is true, real and correct, yours was the perfect post, but then again, I do not want to accept it either! Ah, kismet!

The "faux for Christ" I fear maybe correct and daily prayers are said for such, but I see, in the eyes of others, it is simply pride. Not caring what others think is really a function of youth most likely. Old guys rule simply because we don't give a rip anymore.

My friend, in old world terms, one of your more salient points, after all the above butt sniffing, is "Or it could just be that I've read some books you haven't that use the term in a way you're not familiar with.  Or it could be that despite the fact that you're so dismissive of "Western" modes of thought that you haven't actually acquainted yourself with the sort of Eastern Christian perspective informing my use of the term in question."
One could never have more doubt, or less logic, than the above. Everyone has read some books more than others have not read; and it can follow that you have read more than I regarding this, or any particular topic, but you remind me of Phaedo, or was it another of his works? that teaching people to read is a waste of time, as they fancy themselves "intelligent" yet know nothing. It has been far to long to recall, but such it seems to be all to often now-a-days.
Again, if you wish to be so parochial in your terms, definitions and derivations, this is America and you are free to do so, however your audience will simply be in the cave sharing your shadows and not in the bright freedom where grounded definitions launch meaningful exchanges.

Oh, now I have a reference point:
Quote
"He agrees with me and yet I'm in error and he's not?  Because I'm trouncing you in this debate?  No, I started from the same place as Fr. John using the same source material.  I'm very familiar with his perspective on the subject and I know that our positions are virtually identical.  My point just went over your head because a lot of this is still new to you, and yet, despite your advanced years, your desire to appear wise in the eyes of a bunch of strangers on the internet won't allow you to acknowledge this and so you cast about for peripheral definitions to the terms in question to justify your unjustifiable position.  It's the same thing you're doing in the other thread in which Trisagion is eating your lunch, the thread in which you're contending that we have to pretend to be agnostic about the errors of Roman Catholicism even as you're contending we have to be agnostic about the errors of Mormonism here.  In both instances, you've taken up untenable positions and yet your arrogance won't allow you to simply acknowledge that you're wrong and out of your depth, so you continue to throw up rambling smokescreens in order to obscure the issue."

Please, disregard the previous and issue on Trisagion and "lunch my eating" due to this reference point. You do ignore well my other points so this should be right in line.
As to being in agreement with Fr. John Beher, that is simply mimicry, as stated, he worked at arriving and gave proof of his work, whereas you simply jumped on that band wagon; see my reference to Plato's work above and reading.

My original, in the thread, was not to "appear wise" as I don't care how I "appear" but rather that those who negate or jeer and tear down the beliefs of others rather than tout what is good that is in their beliefs, is wrong/bad. Seems you don't get that point, but rather continue to tear down and jeer if and when crossed, there is a hell of an unfulfilled payment.  Ah, humans! Fr. John was right, we only know of One and with Him His creation of man was finally finished. Clearly, we only strive to be human.

As to the other thread, you are right, I do not know the Catholic Church or any other church in its completeness. Nor do I know the fine points of differentiation between the religions nor the healing words that will bring them back together, or is that possible in the universe of either church? I can tell you one thing for sure I do know...the Muslims are coming...and we can either find a way or they will have their way with us...but that is another thread however the moderator does not allow politics. As an aside I am losing the thread of my own post here and may start another thread on a difference between RC and Ortho...regarding the prepositions "of" and "from"...and I expect you to be more perspicacious in that thread than here.

Regarding my "agnostic" on such I gather you know Orthodoxy in all her fullness?  If so, your 2500 threads I need to review I suppose but if they are as boring as this, then I will not reach perfection under your tutelage.
And you judge me as being an agnostic in not discerning and determining issues that scholars have pondered, then you and and another have "eaten my lunch" and bereft of such I look forward to the posts of you and others, but again, feasting on nothing will give me just as much: nothing.

Thanks for the new word PWING. As in the most of this exchange you use words that have meaning that back up your stuff and only a select few understand. Small world, eh?
And you may be right, I am not wise, however age has given me experience, obviously not from just playing computer, and reflections on those experiences will give one insight; which is why we have a name for those who've not lived long and/or are incapable of insight and in case you are wondering, "immature" is the word.

I cannot go back to Fr. Beher for review as his lecture was live, but he did sign my book. Yippee! and we did have a to small but pleasant exchange regarding Charles Taylor's book A Secular Age. Gads, keep it a secret, but Fr. Beher knows and reads liberal Catholic theology books! Holly smokes! Shhhhh. I wish I could have showed him San Francisco, my hometown, but he was to leave to soon to return to his family. Enough bragging;
I am sure you do not beieve the tripe I posted about "prosperity gospel" but it is all to facile when your definitions, like "living our theology" come into the exchange. Maybe, obviously or stubbornly, you don't see it, but I am done kicking that donkey down the street. As in all arguments, the base of agreement on definitions and then context of those words (syntax) are what hinder any meaningful exchange. Go ahead, use your words and meanings but don't venture out into the real world as there is slaughter out here. 

As we end this exchange....naw, there is not more than I can give....well, maybe...but this day is getting on and I wish to join it.
The end of your scree seems to dwindle to naught but to the ad hominem so I guess you too have run out of gas? You are right, I am an old fool as such would only continue this silliness...that, and a young fool too...and if so, then do it for Christ's sake rather than only of the ad hominem, as that is what can be learned in such an exchange: anger, pride, hatred all of which is turned to the good since we now know our sins to confess....kind of simple, like many of my confessions: Fr. I drive and in that I find most all those seven deadly sins....something so  simple as driving or "webbing" and yet so sinful! no?

PS: your tag line is interesting and believable, I find.
 
In other words, you see you're losing the debate so you declare the thread to be idle chatter and announce you're done with it, but your pride has been wounded, the fact that you cannot get the last word continues to sting, and so your unjustifiably inflated ego drags you back to the battlefield to take another drubbing.

Lord, give me strength in my old age to help the unjust, and since many, as here, find themselves to be wounded, give them strength as well.

 ::) You are truly a myrmidon of melodrama, Len.

You play the victim well, Nikolas

Not as well as you play the faux-Fool for Christ and wannabe prophet of the interwebs.

Besides, I'm not playing the victim, Len.  Just reminding you not to start stuff you can't finish.  You picked the wrong post to try to make an example of and now you continue to humiliate yourself because your compulsive nature won't allow you to stop replying after every rambling argument you've advanced has been thoroughly refuted.  Sort of like how Trisagion ate your lunch in the other thread but you can't stop prattling on there either.

as so many in this generation

Which generation would that be, Len?

so please let me give you insight, if you are capable of receiving such.

I'm waiting.  You've given me none as yet.

And yet again, as done so often in this age, you wish to have words suited to your choice rather than common definitions or meanings.

Or it could just be that I've read some books you haven't that use the term in a way you're not familiar with.  Or it could be that despite the fact that you're so dismissive of "Western" modes of thought that you haven't actually acquainted yourself with the sort of Eastern Christian perspective informing my use of the term in question.

Could it be that such erudition leaves one as Don Quixote, living in the tower of the internet, so that all they know is themselves and the spins placed upon their medium of exchange?

Could it be that you're out of your depth and that your original premise has no merit and has been debunked, and yet your ego won't allow you to refrain from making yet another garbled, longwinded, and ultimately meaningless reply and so here we are yet again?

In your case, Yes, so clear your mind.

But then we'd both be empty-headed.

Forget your 2500 or so posts

At this rate, you'll catch up to me soon enough.

and deal with a simple one.

I'm dealing with a "simple one" every time I engage with you.

Inherent in the base notion of "apophatic" is the ad hominem approach to demonstrate, or actually alter, a point, though the base definition is clear,  yet for some reason you bring  it only into theology

Because that's the context in which we're using the term and the only way in which it's applicable to the discussion, your attempts to muddy the waters aside.

via an Ortho-Wiki definition

Yes, Len, Orthodox Wiki, because when I referenced the theologians who utilized the terminology in question the way I did, you had no clue who they were.  Therefore, something more elementary was in order.

Oh, wait, now I see another diatribe (and wounded warrior)

You must have a lot of mirrors in your house.

since I used a non-Orthodox definition of that word IN an Orthodox setting!

In an attempt at obfustication, since you're losing the argument big time.

Lick your wounds as you seek justice for this offense, young man.

Wounds?  Len, other than your attempts at personal insults, you've managed no "wounds" whatsoever.  You haven't been able to either defend your own position or discredit any aspect of mine in any meaningful way, so now you're throwing a fit like a child.  You're the walking exemplar of the maxim that age doesn't necessarily come with wisdom.

Oh, and as for that definition, while away yesterday enjoying a lecture from Fr. John Beher, he too brought up that word, theology. It seems his erudition is derived from all the work he has sweated  and worked for over the years and from what I gather he agrees with you! It is not that he is in error, as you, but rather he started with the base definition and derived his notions. You simply start with such notion and proceed to make invalid and meaningless points!

He agrees with me and yet I'm in error and he's not?  Because I'm trouncing you in this debate?  No, I started from the same place as Fr. John using the same source material.  I'm very familiar with his perspective on the subject and I know that our positions are virtually identical.  My point just went over your head because a lot of this is still new to you, and yet, despite your advanced years, your desire to appear wise in the eyes of a bunch of strangers on the internet won't allow you to acknowledge this and so you cast about for peripheral definitions to the terms in question to justify your unjustifiable position.  It's the same thing you're doing in the other thread in which Trisagion is eating your lunch, the thread in which you're contending that we have to pretend to be agnostic about the errors of Roman Catholicism even as you're contending we have to be agnostic about the errors of Mormonism here.  In both instances, you've taken up untenable positions and yet your arrogance won't allow you to simply acknowledge that you're wrong and out of your depth, so you continue to throw up rambling smokescreens in order to obscure the issue.

If we cannot agree on such base issues as with the meaning of words, then I concede this discussion

And yet you'll predictably manage another rambling, ineffectual reply.

however I urge you to remain not only on the internet but never leave this forum to join another. A
Actually, forgive me again, as you really do need to leave not only this forum, but the internet as it is obvious this is the only place you have meaning, and this is an illusion.

Yeah, this is a favorite ad hominem argument of those getting their butts kicked in webforum debates.  "Well, you may be pwning me here (look it up, if that's also beyond the scope of your experience due to generational disconnect) but you don't have a life outside the internet."  Whatever.  Think that if you like, Len.  You don't know who I am or what I do outside of this forum.  All you know is I'm the guy you haven't been able to best in this discussion.  Based on the enormous amount of venom and vitriol dripping from every one of your posts, it obviously means a lot to you too.  Your "passions are enflamed" and you're taking this very personally.  You've declared you were going to "let it go" and you've advised others to "move along, nothing to see here" but you can't and you won't.  You'll even reply to this, and more caustically than ever.  You keep referencing your age and the number of years you have on me.  Chronologically, perhaps, but you're not what I'd call a wise old man, someone I could learn from.  Rather, you stoop lower than folks a quarter of your age on these boards.  At least they have an excuse for their immaturity.  Maybe you should grow up, Len, and stop taking debates on a webforum so seriously.

For example: http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/god-and-mankind-comparative-religions.html
is not to close to your definition of Comparative Theology, as I see only the 'Comparative" in the title, but as in all "comparative" academic approaches, judgment is left out of the game.
 

Actually, Len, I've read that book.  Ogden compares and contrasts as I did.  So far as judgment goes, he - like me - doesn't assign anyone to hell.  He has to be politically correct in academia though, so he can't make any definitive statements like, say, there is only one True God and He is not Odin, Thor, Zeus, or the god of Kolob.

Now I know you wish to tell me you did not judge in your initial response, but your other posts in this thread belie you.

I made simple statements of fact, Len.  You yourself acknowledged that you read judgment into them that wasn't there, so your words belie you on this score.  Your wounded ego and an immaturity uncharacteristic of someone so long in the tooth won't allow you to let it drop though.

I know you will not conceded that the above is a poor start of any attempt to educate you, but try and humor me a moment, difficult as it may be for you.

Len, you'd better obtain the rudiments of an education for yourself before you attempt to educate anyone else.

By using your definition of theology and thus your justification, you can call Mormons, and all others, false and "sick" as they too " live our theology". As we can only see how one "lives our theology" their way of "living", producing, and giving examples like hospitals, schools,  a whole state AND running guys for the highest office in the greatest country on Earth, well it must be greater than Orthodoxy, as they do all that "live" stuff so well! So, Rabbi, God loves and favors them more, since they "live theology" and can prove it in this kingdom-moving-toward heaven.

And again, you totally misapprehend all I've been saying.  I'm not an adherent of the Prosperity Gospel ethos, Len.  I don't believe that any of what you've cited above is proof of God's favor or of the truth of a given system.  This isn't what I mean at all by living our theology.  Go back and re-read the post, and while you're at it, watch your Fr. John Behr lecture again and look into the theologians I've cited.  St. Seraphim lived his theology and he certainly didn't have a mansion and a yacht out in the woods or aspire to the highest office in the land.  All of that means nothing, Rabbi.  Nothing at all.

IOW, your definitions, like of "theology" and "apophatic" as well as others used in this exchange,  have meanings in it not given, but applied, and poorly at that.
For the slow amongst us, as can have agreements on words, we can have some type of meaningful exchange; absent that....phaaa!

In other words, you're struggling to keep up.  You had to look the terms up in the first place and were familiar with only there most pedestrian definitions (and I'm not talking about foot traffic here, in case you're confused again).  Then, when your own research confirms that the terms can be applied in the way I apply them, your ego still won't allow you to acknowledge that you are absolutely the one getting an education here.  The only lesson you're teaching me is that there is no fool like an old fool.

You applied your "unfair" to my original post on this issue. You claim to seek some notion of "fairness" but only by definitions you wish.  And as your attempts rest in the divine, (really,? a definition from Ortho-Wiki?)  there is no justice for your victim-hood here on Earth, which further justifies your castigation and vitriol of those that use YOU, the high and mighty (not simply your post to make a point; how dare we pipsqueaks with only months of Orthodoxy) and so your practice of victim-hood is as poorly worn as most young folks wear clothes now-a-days.

You were wrong.  Period.  You read meaning into my words that wasn't there, and what is more you attempted to do so in a grandiose, pompous way which makes it appear as if you consider yourself something of a web prophet and a guru to be respected.  You then proceeded to prove that you were neither at all, but rather a petty, vitriolic individual who - even after acknowledging that he was wrong - was possessed of such an unjustifiably enormous ego that he could not bow out of the discussion but continued to flail about in an ever more desperate, incoherent, self-righteous and venomous manner, down to the present post.  I'm sure the next one will be even more haughty, crass, and cretinous.

Thanks for the insight I got into my own rotten soul per our exchange,

What good does acknowledging this do while continuing to indulge in the same behavior by persisting in this unprofitable discussion?

as well as the pop video. I've not listen to bubble gum in scores of years.

Glad you enjoyed it.  It was as eloquent and sophisticated as your entire contribution to this discussion.

You're incoherent babbling aside, you're attempts at muddying the waters won't earn you any points here.  The main thrust of your argument has been defeated: we don't have to pretend that Mormons might be Christians or that they might be worshipping the true God.  They aren't and they don't.  That doesn't mean we're condemning them to hell either.  You had that all wrong, as you've already admitted, but you can't let that stand.  You have to get the last word.  So all you've got left is your wannabe web prophet and fake Fool for Christ schtick, so you're laying it on thick, along with a healthy dose of incoherent babble fit for a bottle of Dr. Bronner's soap.
God is The Creator of All Free Beings

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: could this be a mormon plot
« Reply #103 on: November 26, 2014, 11:21:45 AM »
What lunch did I eat?  I don't recall eating anyone's lunch. I hope it tasted good. I hate it when I eat food and can't remember it. I'm having a roast beef sandwich today. Please no one get mad that I'm booching this fast.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2014, 11:23:20 AM by TheTrisagion »
God bless!

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,236
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: could this be a mormon plot
« Reply #104 on: November 26, 2014, 01:30:00 PM »
Len!  Here you come again, lurching forward like an over-the-hill prizefighter to take another drubbing.  And every bit as articulate.  This should be fun, as always.  Hope you've got your glasses handy.  ;D

Friend of mine (gasp) has one of those MDivs from St. Vlads, did a study on Calvinism and tells me it is the "perfect" religion if we were bees or ants and had no free will. Seems they "sum it up" to the point of "perfection" and one is damned or saved no matter what. That could be appealing to some, besides didn't Calvin have some thing to do with prostitution and its sanctions? Or is that internet chatter?

Uh oh, Len.  Sounds like your friend might be judging the Calvinists.  For shame.  Who is he to say that their religion is fit only for insects?  Idle chatter, Len!  Idle chatter!

Antonius, took a couple of days to do that "live" thingy, but again, after a short refreshing time, we can get back at it.

Con gusto!

As I vainly attempt to cut the verbosity

Vainly is right!

since quantity is appreciated over quality

You appreciate quantity over quality, Len?  Well, that explains a lot!

we shall fly over the non-salient points

Now, now, Len.  If I flew over the non-salient points, there'd be nothing left of our voluminous, rambling posts to address.

to see if one can stop staring at the shadows and come into the light, painful as you find it.

It's a good thing then that your posts - like their author - are dimly - if at all - illuminated.  ;)

Yes, it is pride that brings us back to have at it, but at least it is not foolish as these exchanges can bring more light than heat, I pray.

Have they thus far?  I don't think so.  They began with you assigning a position to me I never advanced and then degenerated to a petty and unedifying back-and-forth from there.  All we've ascertained so far is that you're incapable of acknowledging that you're wrong after the substance of your argument has been thoroughly and undeniably refuted.

You are right,  I do have a passion for melodrama, but then as an old guy, I've read more than Hemingway and find passion in expression.

You certainly don't emulate his preferred mode of expression: lean, simple prose!  ;D

I was not aware that another (Trisagion) "ate my lunch" in some other thread; if you can point to such, it would be interesting.

You know what I'm talking about, Len.  The thread in which you made the same kinds of untenable arguments concerning remaining agnostic about Catholic theology as you've made here concerning Mormon theology and Tris questioned:

Are you really equating your attempt to pretend Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are the same thing with the Resurrection or the Holy Eucharist?  :o

Both sides make exclusive claims that cannot be reconciled with each other. Both sides at least agree to that. By sitting in the middle, plugging your ears and saying that everyone is right, you are just going to look foolish to everyone.

To which you made no substantive reply, but retorted with more of your usual schtick.

I am barely getting this internet-forum-thingy down. I took me far to long how to intersperse the "quote" thingy between sections, thus I find this a whole lot less tedious and time consuming simply to answer your jabs in this fashion.
Actually, to help, it would be simpler to cut to the essentials of each post rather than jab here and there, no? I see you are good at it and if I live long enough maybe after 2500 posts I can learn to do it quickly, or if I am that interested. Like another posted in this thread, the more words, the more boring! As such, I'll bet you are a pill, as in "for sleep".

I'm obviously keeping your attention, Len.  You can't seem to take your eyes off of anything I write.  If my posts are a sleeping pill to you, they must also engage you even in your dreams as you seem incapable of turning away from them even after a few days of recuperative "living".

As to my preferred style, others seem to find it helpful as it lends itself to greater clarity, where as your rambling style befits the garbled, meandering stream-of-consciousness to which you usually treat us.  But hey, styles make fights.

As for "picking the wrong post", I guess my faith is not that strong either. Seems to me we "were meant to be" here and now in this missive, no?
If anything is true, real and correct, yours was the perfect post, but then again, I do not want to accept it either! Ah, kismet!

Kismet?  You old sweet-talker you!  And I thought you were kidding about getting a room.

The "faux for Christ" I fear maybe correct and daily prayers are said for such, but I see, in the eyes of others, it is simply pride. Not caring what others think is really a function of youth most likely. Old guys rule simply because we don't give a rip anymore.

So...then the inability to let the subject drop stems from what on your part then?

My friend, in old world terms, one of your more salient points, after all the above butt sniffing

You keep your nose where I can see it, Len.

is "Or it could just be that I've read some books you haven't that use the term in a way you're not familiar with.  Or it could be that despite the fact that you're so dismissive of "Western" modes of thought that you haven't actually acquainted yourself with the sort of Eastern Christian perspective informing my use of the term in question."
One could never have more doubt, or less logic, than the above. Everyone has read some books more than others have not read; and it can follow that you have read more than I regarding this, or any particular topic,

And see, Len, here's where you come of like a know-it-all-who-knows-nothing blowhard.  I applied terminology relevant to the discussion in a certain way.  You - being unfamiliar with the terminology - questioned the application.  It was proven that the application was not only appropriate, but the preferred application by most Orthodox theologians.  Instead of simply acknowledging that you were in over your head on this particular point, you attempted another pompous rejoinder in which you attempted to scold me for not limiting myself to the pedestrian definitions you found via Google. I wasn't having it, so I replied with the above.  This has been our entire conversation in a nutshell.  You make a meandering, insupportable point, I refute it, you reply with more rambling and some pretentious role-playing in which you fancy yourself a guru bent on teaching me.  All you teach me, as I've said, is that the old aren't necessarily wise or erudite.

but you remind me of Phaedo, or was it another of his works? that teaching people to read is a waste of time, as they fancy themselves "intelligent" yet know nothing. It has been far to long to recall, but such it seems to be all to often now-a-days.

Len, your haughtiness is showing.  Just because I haven't learned anything from you in this exchange, this doesn't mean that I'm not open to learning period.  You just haven't shown me anything of value as yet.

Again, if you wish to be so parochial in your terms, definitions and derivations, this is America and you are free to do so, however your audience will simply be in the cave sharing your shadows and not in the bright freedom where grounded definitions launch meaningful exchanges.

You have that backwards, Len.  If the audience isn't stubborn and so attached to their own delusions that they're unwilling to relinquish them even when they've been proven false, then perhaps they could move beyond the shadows (that is, the pedestrian meanings they've fixated upon and insist upon applying to certain terms) and see them in the light for what they really are.

Oh, now I have a reference point...Please, disregard the previous and issue on Trisagion and "lunch my eating" due to this reference point.

LOL.  All this shows is that despite your protestations that you reply to posts en toto instead of line-by-line, you actually do the latter.  Otherwise, once you came to this line, you wouldn't have needed to ask the question you asked above about Trisagion ganking you for your ham and cheese.

You do ignore well my other points so this should be right in line.

On the contrary, Len!  I've addressed and refuted each of them.

As to being in agreement with Fr. John Beher, that is simply mimicry, as stated, he worked at arriving and gave proof of his work, whereas you simply jumped on that band wagon

And you're wrong again, as I formulated my beliefs on the subject before I read anything Fr. John Behr published on the subject.  We were simply both working from the same source material.

see my reference to Plato's work above and reading.

You're the one apprehending only the shadows here, Len.

My original, in the thread, was not to "appear wise" as I don't care how I "appear"

Your posting history and style indicates otherwise.

but rather that those who negate or jeer and tear down the beliefs of others rather than tout what is good that is in their beliefs, is wrong/bad.

And again, you yourself acknowledged that you read judgments into my post that weren't there, but you didn't like that I didn't allow your mischaracterization to stand and so here we are.  You're obviously used to pretending to be the wisest guy in the room and having people defer to your pomposity - hence your constant appeals to your age and your name-dropping of literary figures - but since its obviously all a show I see no reason to allow you an unchallenged pulpit here.

Seems you don't get that point, but rather continue to tear down and jeer if and when crossed, there is a hell of an unfulfilled payment.

Again, Len, you may as well be looking in a mirror.  All you've posted in this exchange falls under the heading of this reprimand.
 
Ah, humans! Fr. John was right, we only know of One and with Him His creation of man was finally finished. Clearly, we only strive to be human.

Yes, he was right indeed, Len.

As to the other thread, you are right, I do not know the Catholic Church or any other church in its completeness. Nor do I know the fine points of differentiation between the religions nor the healing words that will bring them back together, or is that possible in the universe of either church?

True reconciliation is only possible when we acknowledge what actually separates us.  Pretending that no one's right, no one's wrong won't lead to anything but a false unity.  This is the problem, Len.  You insist that acknowledging difference - that saying someone is wrong - amounts to a condemnation of who they are.

I can tell you one thing for sure I do know...the Muslims are coming...and we can either find a way or they will have their way with us...but that is another thread however the moderator does not allow politics.

So everyone might be right but the Muslims?  The Hugh Hefner of Kolob might be our God, and the Catholics and the Orthodox might both be right when they articulate doctrines that are diametrically opposed, but the Muslims...oh no...they're beyond the pale.  Who are we to say they're wrong when it comes to their conception of God?

As an aside I am losing the thread of my own post here

Always.



and may start another thread on a difference between RC and Ortho...regarding the prepositions "of" and "from"...and I expect you to be more perspicacious in that thread than here.

You calling for me to be more perspicacious is like Rasputin calling for Yul Brynner to shave.

Regarding my "agnostic" on such I gather you know Orthodoxy in all her fullness? 

Yes, Len.  It follows that if someone understands the differences between the Orthodox and Catholic conceptions of the procession of the Holy Spirit, the Immaculate Conception, the role of the Papacy, et cetera, they must be claiming to know Orthodoxy in all of its fullness.  Same thing if they contend that the man from Kolob is not the Christian God.  ::)

If so, your 2500 threads I need to review I suppose but if they are as boring as this, then I will not reach perfection under your tutelage.

So boring you can't stay away, huh, Len?  :D

You keep making a bid deal out of the fact that I've got 2300+ posts under my belt (almost 2400) which you exaggerate to 2500, but that's cool.  I've been here a lot longer than you.  I average 0.546 per day.  You average 0.236 per day.  Like I said, you'll catch me soon enough!  ;)

And you judge me as being an agnostic in not discerning and determining issues that scholars have pondered, then you and and another have "eaten my lunch" and bereft of such I look forward to the posts of you and others, but again, feasting on nothing will give me just as much: nothing.

If we've been eating your lunch, Len, feasting on nothing is precisely what we've been doing.  You've contributed nothing to this discussion but the same pettiness, spitefulness, and venom you accuse others of while simultaneously feigning humility and pretending to be above it all.

Thanks for the new word PWING. As in the most of this exchange you use words that have meaning that back up your stuff and only a select few understand. Small world, eh?

Only a small clique of elitist sophisticates know what pwning means?  Welcome to the internet, Len.  :)

And you may be right, I am not wise, however age has given me experience, obviously not from just playing computer, and reflections on those experiences will give one insight; which is why we have a name for those who've not lived long and/or are incapable of insight and in case you are wondering, "immature" is the word.

And what's your excuse for the immaturity you've put on public display throughout this thread despite your advanced age and supposed "insight"?  You've stooped as low in this thread as any of the young adults or teenagers posting in this forum.  If it's due to lack of "experience" for the rest of us, what's you're excuse?

I cannot go back to Fr. Beher for review as his lecture was live, but he did sign my book. Yippee!

Great!  Now try reading it.

and we did have a to small but pleasant exchange regarding Charles Taylor's book A Secular Age. Gads, keep it a secret, but Fr. Beher knows and reads liberal Catholic theology books! Holly smokes! Shhhhh.

Right, and that must mean he agrees with everything in it.  Guess what, Len?  I've read the book of Mormon!!!  :o

I wish I could have showed him San Francisco, my hometown, but he was to leave to soon to return to his family.

I'm glad he was able to make his escape.

Enough bragging;
I am sure you do not beieve the tripe I posted about "prosperity gospel" but it is all to facile when your definitions, like "living our theology" come into the exchange.

You still don't know what "living our theology" means.

Maybe, obviously or stubbornly, you don't see it, but I am done kicking that donkey down the street.

Turn now to the mule in the mirror and see if you can budge him.

As in all arguments, the base of agreement on definitions and then context of those words (syntax) are what hinder any meaningful exchange.

So we should reduce ourselves to the most pedestrian and constraining definitions possible even if they have less to do with the subject matter at hand or the terms as they were originally introduced to the discussion and are applied in Orthodox discourse.

Go ahead, use your words and meanings but don't venture out into the real world as there is slaughter out here. 

Don't you venture into the real world, as you might discover that you're not the guru you think you are and your pretentions might be seen for exactly what they are.

As we end this exchange....

LOL.

naw, there is not more than I can give....

And I'm sure we'll here it enough soon.

well, maybe...but this day is getting on and I wish to join it.

You'll be back.

The end of your scree seems to dwindle to naught but to the ad hominem so I guess you too have run out of gas?

Either that or since the main thrust of your argument has been repeatedly debunked and discredited - and you've made no significant dents in anything I've advanced - there's nothing left to do but reply to your childish ad hominem in kind.  Besides, it's fun.

You are right, I am an old fool as such would only continue this silliness...that, and a young fool too...and if so, then do it for Christ's sake rather than only of the ad hominem, as that is what can be learned in such an exchange: anger, pride, hatred all of which is turned to the good since we now know our sins to confess....kind of simple, like many of my confessions: Fr. I drive and in that I find most all those seven deadly sins....something so  simple as driving or "webbing" and yet so sinful! no?

If you think your participation in this thread is something sinful - something you need to confess - why return again and again to that which tempts you and "enflames your passions"?  Such might be ascribed to youthful braggadocio and immaturity in a young fool.  If an old fool has really not advanced beyond that stage after his many years of experience, garnering much insight, what excuse does he have at all?

PS: your tag line is interesting and believable, I find.

Yes, it is true Len.  Though I would clarify that despite your baseless assertions to the contrary a critical assessment of fallacious doctrine does not amount to judging the sins of those who've authored it or subscribe to it.  But it seems you refuse to get it.
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline LenInSebastopol

  • Dimly Illumined
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,595
Re: could this be a mormon plot
« Reply #105 on: November 27, 2014, 10:12:36 AM »
From the below I found out that you read a book, you win, you win, you win per your own descriptions and proclamations, you agree that all my posts are pompous, idiotic, rambling, foolish, voluminous, etc,  you track and respond to them well, have fun retorting to such, you admire Hemingway although more than a few writers critique him as merely a typist, not artist, you go to other threads to search out my other posts (thank you for the compliment, though you mischaracterized me with that as well!),  you show no idea what the word "kismet" means and thus miss the point that this exchange was fated by someone other than the serendipity and the moderator, you find "pedestrian" (used as a pejorative by you) to start with agreed upon definitions and develop them, you place yourself among theologians (God help us and them since standing in the garage does not make you an automobile), you enjoy being elite since you use the interweb and PWING and that is all fun and dandy,

however,
Quote
It follows that if someone understands the differences between the Orthodox and Catholic conceptions of the procession of the Holy Spirit, the Immaculate Conception, the role of the Papacy, et cetera, they must be claiming to know Orthodoxy in all of its fullness.  Same thing if they contend that the man from Kolob is not the Christian God.

 you ***ad hominem removed***!  You read a book or a thousand "on" Orthodoxy and "know" her fullness!? You understand what you typed? You take mysteries and miracles and the separation of great churches and then claim to understand them?
Post what you will; we are done and if we had a room or a ring you would be pounded into ***ad hominem and veiled obscenity removed***!

edited by minasoliman



Len!  Here you come again, lurching forward like an over-the-hill prizefighter to take another drubbing.  And every bit as articulate.  This should be fun, as always.  Hope you've got your glasses handy.  ;D

Friend of mine (gasp) has one of those MDivs from St. Vlads, did a study on Calvinism and tells me it is the "perfect" religion if we were bees or ants and had no free will. Seems they "sum it up" to the point of "perfection" and one is damned or saved no matter what. That could be appealing to some, besides didn't Calvin have some thing to do with prostitution and its sanctions? Or is that internet chatter?

Uh oh, Len.  Sounds like your friend might be judging the Calvinists.  For shame.  Who is he to say that their religion is fit only for insects?  Idle chatter, Len!  Idle chatter!

Antonius, took a couple of days to do that "live" thingy, but again, after a short refreshing time, we can get back at it.

Con gusto!

As I vainly attempt to cut the verbosity

Vainly is right!

since quantity is appreciated over quality

You appreciate quantity over quality, Len?  Well, that explains a lot!

we shall fly over the non-salient points

Now, now, Len.  If I flew over the non-salient points, there'd be nothing left of our voluminous, rambling posts to address.

to see if one can stop staring at the shadows and come into the light, painful as you find it.

It's a good thing then that your posts - like their author - are dimly - if at all - illuminated.  ;)

Yes, it is pride that brings us back to have at it, but at least it is not foolish as these exchanges can bring more light than heat, I pray.

Have they thus far?  I don't think so.  They began with you assigning a position to me I never advanced and then degenerated to a petty and unedifying back-and-forth from there.  All we've ascertained so far is that you're incapable of acknowledging that you're wrong after the substance of your argument has been thoroughly and undeniably refuted.

You are right,  I do have a passion for melodrama, but then as an old guy, I've read more than Hemingway and find passion in expression.

You certainly don't emulate his preferred mode of expression: lean, simple prose!  ;D

I was not aware that another (Trisagion) "ate my lunch" in some other thread; if you can point to such, it would be interesting.

You know what I'm talking about, Len.  The thread in which you made the same kinds of untenable arguments concerning remaining agnostic about Catholic theology as you've made here concerning Mormon theology and Tris questioned:

Are you really equating your attempt to pretend Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are the same thing with the Resurrection or the Holy Eucharist?  :o

Both sides make exclusive claims that cannot be reconciled with each other. Both sides at least agree to that. By sitting in the middle, plugging your ears and saying that everyone is right, you are just going to look foolish to everyone.

To which you made no substantive reply, but retorted with more of your usual schtick.

I am barely getting this internet-forum-thingy down. I took me far to long how to intersperse the "quote" thingy between sections, thus I find this a whole lot less tedious and time consuming simply to answer your jabs in this fashion.
Actually, to help, it would be simpler to cut to the essentials of each post rather than jab here and there, no? I see you are good at it and if I live long enough maybe after 2500 posts I can learn to do it quickly, or if I am that interested. Like another posted in this thread, the more words, the more boring! As such, I'll bet you are a pill, as in "for sleep".

I'm obviously keeping your attention, Len.  You can't seem to take your eyes off of anything I write.  If my posts are a sleeping pill to you, they must also engage you even in your dreams as you seem incapable of turning away from them even after a few days of recuperative "living".

As to my preferred style, others seem to find it helpful as it lends itself to greater clarity, where as your rambling style befits the garbled, meandering stream-of-consciousness to which you usually treat us.  But hey, styles make fights.

As for "picking the wrong post", I guess my faith is not that strong either. Seems to me we "were meant to be" here and now in this missive, no?
If anything is true, real and correct, yours was the perfect post, but then again, I do not want to accept it either! Ah, kismet!

Kismet?  You old sweet-talker you!  And I thought you were kidding about getting a room.

The "faux for Christ" I fear maybe correct and daily prayers are said for such, but I see, in the eyes of others, it is simply pride. Not caring what others think is really a function of youth most likely. Old guys rule simply because we don't give a rip anymore.

So...then the inability to let the subject drop stems from what on your part then?

My friend, in old world terms, one of your more salient points, after all the above butt sniffing

You keep your nose where I can see it, Len.

is "Or it could just be that I've read some books you haven't that use the term in a way you're not familiar with.  Or it could be that despite the fact that you're so dismissive of "Western" modes of thought that you haven't actually acquainted yourself with the sort of Eastern Christian perspective informing my use of the term in question."
One could never have more doubt, or less logic, than the above. Everyone has read some books more than others have not read; and it can follow that you have read more than I regarding this, or any particular topic,

And see, Len, here's where you come of like a know-it-all-who-knows-nothing blowhard.  I applied terminology relevant to the discussion in a certain way.  You - being unfamiliar with the terminology - questioned the application.  It was proven that the application was not only appropriate, but the preferred application by most Orthodox theologians.  Instead of simply acknowledging that you were in over your head on this particular point, you attempted another pompous rejoinder in which you attempted to scold me for not limiting myself to the pedestrian definitions you found via Google. I wasn't having it, so I replied with the above.  This has been our entire conversation in a nutshell.  You make a meandering, insupportable point, I refute it, you reply with more rambling and some pretentious role-playing in which you fancy yourself a guru bent on teaching me.  All you teach me, as I've said, is that the old aren't necessarily wise or erudite.

but you remind me of Phaedo, or was it another of his works? that teaching people to read is a waste of time, as they fancy themselves "intelligent" yet know nothing. It has been far to long to recall, but such it seems to be all to often now-a-days.

Len, your haughtiness is showing.  Just because I haven't learned anything from you in this exchange, this doesn't mean that I'm not open to learning period.  You just haven't shown me anything of value as yet.

Again, if you wish to be so parochial in your terms, definitions and derivations, this is America and you are free to do so, however your audience will simply be in the cave sharing your shadows and not in the bright freedom where grounded definitions launch meaningful exchanges.

You have that backwards, Len.  If the audience isn't stubborn and so attached to their own delusions that they're unwilling to relinquish them even when they've been proven false, then perhaps they could move beyond the shadows (that is, the pedestrian meanings they've fixated upon and insist upon applying to certain terms) and see them in the light for what they really are.

Oh, now I have a reference point...Please, disregard the previous and issue on Trisagion and "lunch my eating" due to this reference point.

LOL.  All this shows is that despite your protestations that you reply to posts en toto instead of line-by-line, you actually do the latter.  Otherwise, once you came to this line, you wouldn't have needed to ask the question you asked above about Trisagion ganking you for your ham and cheese.

You do ignore well my other points so this should be right in line.

On the contrary, Len!  I've addressed and refuted each of them.

As to being in agreement with Fr. John Beher, that is simply mimicry, as stated, he worked at arriving and gave proof of his work, whereas you simply jumped on that band wagon

And you're wrong again, as I formulated my beliefs on the subject before I read anything Fr. John Behr published on the subject.  We were simply both working from the same source material.

see my reference to Plato's work above and reading.

You're the one apprehending only the shadows here, Len.

My original, in the thread, was not to "appear wise" as I don't care how I "appear"

Your posting history and style indicates otherwise.

but rather that those who negate or jeer and tear down the beliefs of others rather than tout what is good that is in their beliefs, is wrong/bad.

And again, you yourself acknowledged that you read judgments into my post that weren't there, but you didn't like that I didn't allow your mischaracterization to stand and so here we are.  You're obviously used to pretending to be the wisest guy in the room and having people defer to your pomposity - hence your constant appeals to your age and your name-dropping of literary figures - but since its obviously all a show I see no reason to allow you an unchallenged pulpit here.

Seems you don't get that point, but rather continue to tear down and jeer if and when crossed, there is a hell of an unfulfilled payment.

Again, Len, you may as well be looking in a mirror.  All you've posted in this exchange falls under the heading of this reprimand.
  
Ah, humans! Fr. John was right, we only know of One and with Him His creation of man was finally finished. Clearly, we only strive to be human.

Yes, he was right indeed, Len.

As to the other thread, you are right, I do not know the Catholic Church or any other church in its completeness. Nor do I know the fine points of differentiation between the religions nor the healing words that will bring them back together, or is that possible in the universe of either church?

True reconciliation is only possible when we acknowledge what actually separates us.  Pretending that no one's right, no one's wrong won't lead to anything but a false unity.  This is the problem, Len.  You insist that acknowledging difference - that saying someone is wrong - amounts to a condemnation of who they are.

I can tell you one thing for sure I do know...the Muslims are coming...and we can either find a way or they will have their way with us...but that is another thread however the moderator does not allow politics.

So everyone might be right but the Muslims?  The Hugh Hefner of Kolob might be our God, and the Catholics and the Orthodox might both be right when they articulate doctrines that are diametrically opposed, but the Muslims...oh no...they're beyond the pale.  Who are we to say they're wrong when it comes to their conception of God?

As an aside I am losing the thread of my own post here

Always.



and may start another thread on a difference between RC and Ortho...regarding the prepositions "of" and "from"...and I expect you to be more perspicacious in that thread than here.

You calling for me to be more perspicacious is like Rasputin calling for Yul Brynner to shave.

Regarding my "agnostic" on such I gather you know Orthodoxy in all her fullness?  

Yes, Len.  It follows that if someone understands the differences between the Orthodox and Catholic conceptions of the procession of the Holy Spirit, the Immaculate Conception, the role of the Papacy, et cetera, they must be claiming to know Orthodoxy in all of its fullness.  Same thing if they contend that the man from Kolob is not the Christian God.  ::)

If so, your 2500 threads I need to review I suppose but if they are as boring as this, then I will not reach perfection under your tutelage.

So boring you can't stay away, huh, Len?  :D

You keep making a bid deal out of the fact that I've got 2300+ posts under my belt (almost 2400) which you exaggerate to 2500, but that's cool.  I've been here a lot longer than you.  I average 0.546 per day.  You average 0.236 per day.  Like I said, you'll catch me soon enough!  ;)

And you judge me as being an agnostic in not discerning and determining issues that scholars have pondered, then you and and another have "eaten my lunch" and bereft of such I look forward to the posts of you and others, but again, feasting on nothing will give me just as much: nothing.

If we've been eating your lunch, Len, feasting on nothing is precisely what we've been doing.  You've contributed nothing to this discussion but the same pettiness, spitefulness, and venom you accuse others of while simultaneously feigning humility and pretending to be above it all.

Thanks for the new word PWING. As in the most of this exchange you use words that have meaning that back up your stuff and only a select few understand. Small world, eh?

Only a small clique of elitist sophisticates know what pwning means?  Welcome to the internet, Len.  :)

And you may be right, I am not wise, however age has given me experience, obviously not from just playing computer, and reflections on those experiences will give one insight; which is why we have a name for those who've not lived long and/or are incapable of insight and in case you are wondering, "immature" is the word.

And what's your excuse for the immaturity you've put on public display throughout this thread despite your advanced age and supposed "insight"?  You've stooped as low in this thread as any of the young adults or teenagers posting in this forum.  If it's due to lack of "experience" for the rest of us, what's you're excuse?

I cannot go back to Fr. Beher for review as his lecture was live, but he did sign my book. Yippee!

Great!  Now try reading it.

and we did have a to small but pleasant exchange regarding Charles Taylor's book A Secular Age. Gads, keep it a secret, but Fr. Beher knows and reads liberal Catholic theology books! Holly smokes! Shhhhh.

Right, and that must mean he agrees with everything in it.  Guess what, Len?  I've read the book of Mormon!!!  :o

I wish I could have showed him San Francisco, my hometown, but he was to leave to soon to return to his family.

I'm glad he was able to make his escape.

Enough bragging;
I am sure you do not beieve the tripe I posted about "prosperity gospel" but it is all to facile when your definitions, like "living our theology" come into the exchange.

You still don't know what "living our theology" means.

Maybe, obviously or stubbornly, you don't see it, but I am done kicking that donkey down the street.

Turn now to the mule in the mirror and see if you can budge him.

As in all arguments, the base of agreement on definitions and then context of those words (syntax) are what hinder any meaningful exchange.

So we should reduce ourselves to the most pedestrian and constraining definitions possible even if they have less to do with the subject matter at hand or the terms as they were originally introduced to the discussion and are applied in Orthodox discourse.

Go ahead, use your words and meanings but don't venture out into the real world as there is slaughter out here.  

Don't you venture into the real world, as you might discover that you're not the guru you think you are and your pretentions might be seen for exactly what they are.

As we end this exchange....

LOL.

naw, there is not more than I can give....

And I'm sure we'll here it enough soon.

well, maybe...but this day is getting on and I wish to join it.

You'll be back.

The end of your scree seems to dwindle to naught but to the ad hominem so I guess you too have run out of gas?

Either that or since the main thrust of your argument has been repeatedly debunked and discredited - and you've made no significant dents in anything I've advanced - there's nothing left to do but reply to your childish ad hominem in kind.  Besides, it's fun.

You are right, I am an old fool as such would only continue this silliness...that, and a young fool too...and if so, then do it for Christ's sake rather than only of the ad hominem, as that is what can be learned in such an exchange: anger, pride, hatred all of which is turned to the good since we now know our sins to confess....kind of simple, like many of my confessions: Fr. I drive and in that I find most all those seven deadly sins....something so  simple as driving or "webbing" and yet so sinful! no?

If you think your participation in this thread is something sinful - something you need to confess - why return again and again to that which tempts you and "enflames your passions"?  Such might be ascribed to youthful braggadocio and immaturity in a young fool.  If an old fool has really not advanced beyond that stage after his many years of experience, garnering much insight, what excuse does he have at all?

PS: your tag line is interesting and believable, I find.

Yes, it is true Len.  Though I would clarify that despite your baseless assertions to the contrary a critical assessment of fallacious doctrine does not amount to judging the sins of those who've authored it or subscribe to it.  But it seems you refuse to get it.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2014, 01:02:30 AM by minasoliman »
God is The Creator of All Free Beings

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,236
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: could this be a mormon plot
« Reply #106 on: November 27, 2014, 10:43:41 AM »
Len, you can't have it both ways.  You can't be a transcendent starets teaching an impudent young pupil through his living example of humility and a foul-mouthed internet tough guy making threats of physical violence.

From the below I found out that you read a book

But which book?  You're missing the point.  You implied that because Fr. John Behr read a liberal Catholic book that must mean he was in sympathy with its teachings.  I remarked that I read the book of Mormon and yet we're having this discussion.  Get it?

you win, you win, you win

Coming around to reality, eh?  ;)

per your own descriptions and proclamations, you agree that all my posts are pompous, idiotic, rambling, foolish, voluminous, etc,

Yes.  Yes, indeed.  

you track and respond to them well, have fun retorting to such,

Okay.

you admire Hemingway

Relative to what you're posting.

although more than a few writers critique him as merely a typist, not artist

Who cares?

you go to other threads to search out my other posts

No.  I was following that thread before you lumbered into it.

(thank you for the compliment, though you mischaracterized me with that as well!)

As you've mischaracterized me throughout our exchange.  

you show no idea what the word "kismet" means and thus miss the point that this exchange was fated by someone other than the serendipity and the moderator,

LOL.  We all know what kismet means, Len.  But the way you were using it in that particular post...well, it speaks for itself you charmer.

Quote
Seems to me we "were meant to be" here and now in this missive, no?
If anything is true, real and correct, yours was the perfect post, but then again, I do not want to accept it either! Ah, kismet!

you find "pedestrian" (used as a pejorative by you) to start with agreed upon definitions and develop them

No, I find it arrogant that a self-proclaimed old and experienced man comes across unfamiliar terminology in an online discussion, gets flustered, Googles the terms to find out what they mean, and then tries to claim that the terms are being used improperly based upon the very basic stuff he finds via Google.  The use of the terms was established in this discussion by their first application, that is, the way I used them.  You were just out of your depth.

you place yourself among theologians

Who says?  I just cited them.

(God help us and them since standing in the garage does not make you an automobile)

And blathering on in a pretentious manner doesn't make you a font of wisdom.  Especially when you start cursing at people and threatening them.

you enjoy being elite since you use the interweb and PWING and that is all fun and dandy

Using the internet makes you elite now?  Who knew?

you ***ad hominem removed***!  

Temper, temper, Len.  Since you're resorting to ad hominem should we assume you're out of gas?  ;D

You read a book or a thousand "on" Orthodoxy and "know" her fullness!?

Do you understand sarcasm?

You understand what you typed?

Do you?

You take mysteries and miracles and the separation of great churches and then claim to understand them?

You're getting your panties in a wad for no reason here, Len.  Give it a minute.  It'll dawn on you.  Read the block of text that's got you so worked up again.  See if it means what you think it means.

Post what you will; we are done

Again, I doubt.  You'll be back.

and if we had a room or a ring you would be pounded into ***ad hominem removed***

You're a real tough guy, huh Len?  And very mature.

***ad hominem and veiled obscenity removed***

edited by minasoliman

Language, Len!  Language!  Hardly befitting for a self-appointed starets.

Bottom line, Len: this discussion - if it ever had any merit - is becoming truly less than edifying or beneficial to anyone involved.  Your ire was piqued because you read a judgment of Mormon souls into my proclamation that the Mormon god is not our God that wasn't there.  You wanted to teach the boards a lesson about humility and judging others and you've wound up by cursing at me and threatening me.  Do you think you've got your lesson across to those reading?

Edit: I'll tell you what, Len.  Since my refusal to accept your correction has obviously upset you, I sincerely ask your prayers and forgiveness.  I think you went about this in the wrong way, but I was also less than humble, as we're called to be.  Pray for me, and let's both move on.  Deal?
« Last Edit: November 28, 2014, 01:05:10 AM by minasoliman »
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,999
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: could this be a mormon plot
« Reply #107 on: November 27, 2014, 02:15:37 PM »
locked for review
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,999
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: could this be a mormon plot
« Reply #108 on: November 28, 2014, 01:09:17 AM »
I edited out the ad hominem and the veiled obscenity.  Since this is the first offense and since I received an apology, I will let this one go with a friendly warning.  I hope that the apology may be extended to one another, and that we may move on in a healthy discussion of the subject at hand.  Please also remember to be acquainted with the rules.

God bless and Happy Thanksgiving.

Mina

thread unlocked
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline LenInSebastopol

  • Dimly Illumined
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,595
Re: could this be a mormon plot
« Reply #109 on: November 28, 2014, 01:46:12 PM »
I apologize for disrespecting those that read my final post in this thread. I used not only name calling, poor judgement, loss of temper and offensive language, but violated common decency as well as forum etiquette and rules. Erasmus once penned, "Tolerence, if not love, sometimes may be the best we can offer". I failed that and will endeavor to put that back into practice.
God is The Creator of All Free Beings

Offline Alpha60

  • The Confederate Flag Is Diabolical and Blasphemous
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,553
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: could this be a mormon plot
« Reply #110 on: August 17, 2017, 10:49:43 AM »
This is an interesting thread that I think we should revisit.  I don't believe we can call Mormons Christians, because their religion is not monotheistic, and relates to Christianity in much the same way as Mannichaenism or Islam, albeit slightly more Christo-centric.

Frankly, I think one could argue that some Gnostic heretics or Unitarians are more deserving of the title Christian than Mormons, but as a general rule, I am not even comfortable with that.

The sine qua non for the use of Christianity as a label, as the starting point for ecumenical reconciliation, must be the Nicene Creed.

Fr. Andrew S. Damick has argued the term is of little value, but I disagree.  I think Orthodoxy can have meaningful dialogues with anyone who accepts the Creed (even with the filioque), whereas those who reject it generally resort to polemics to attack us.

Many Protestant pastors and theologians call contemporary non-Nicene sects like Mormons cults, and I think this is reasonable.  The Mormons, JWs, Christian Science, and other non-Nicene sects tend to exploit their members financially; I would argue the Unitarian Universalists exploit their members politically.

I think some Nicene churches are also cults, and there are grounds for denying the Christian appelation to them.  The Seventh Day Adventists, in particular, due to the length they will go to, to defend the infallibility of the alleged prophecy of Ellen G White, while simultaneously making every effort to attack the Roman Catholic church, all the while claiming falsely to teach Sola Scriptura (when they really teach Sola Ellen G White, even daring to call her the Spirit of Prophecy).  Also, in claiming Jesus Christ and St. Michael the Archangel are the same person, this is implicitly Arian (some SDAs are Arian, although the denomination officially recognizes the Trinity), they seem to me to reject the identity of Christ in a manner akin to the way in which the identity of Christ was rejected by the classical Arians, or by the Manichaean Gnostics, or Islam, or the Ophite Gnostics.

Also, I believe some Pentecostal and Charismatic churches and meetings are cults, and the phenomena that occur therein are of a demonic origin.  In a sense, they are inadvertantly non-Christian, in the same way that Tertullian inadvertantly embraced a similiar heresy.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2017, 11:00:23 AM by Alpha60 »
"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.