Author Topic: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread  (Read 23931 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline WPM

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,308
  • Faith: Lutheran
  • Jurisdiction: Texas
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #135 on: March 24, 2016, 01:15:12 PM »
It consists of people telling you what they think ... And you learn to wise up and know better.
For questions about the history of the Lutheran faith see the Book of Concord available from Pastor's office.

Formula of Concord 1577

A restatement of some teachings in the Augsburg Confession over which Lutherans had become divided. The Solid Declaration is the unabridged version. The Epitome is an abridged version intended for congregations to study. Over 8,100 pastors and theologians signed it, as well as over 50 government leaders.



WELS/ELCA/LCMS Church Pastor's Word

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,865
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #136 on: March 24, 2016, 01:20:48 PM »
I will probably regret asking this, but what does the hymen have to do with virginity?

A lot, if you believe Deuteronomy 22.13-21 and are informed by its presuppositions, which is more likely the case for first century Palestinian Jews than it is for us. 

Quote
The Theotokos is Ever-Virgin regardless of the status of her hymen. Women don't lose their virginity by using a tampon or from sustaining a sports injury.

I agree with you.  But would her generation have agreed with us?  I mean, a concept as seemingly innocuous as "women's sports" might not even have made much sense to them.   

Quote
Giving birth and the resulting body effects is not "defilement".

Sure, according to us.  But in her generation there were all sorts of laws, customs, and ideas regarding uncleanness and purification after birth which were considered normative, so I'm not sure they would accept our standards.  And "the fulness of time" (cf. Gal. 4.4) was in her lifetime, not ours; under the law of Moses, not under our standards. 

Quote
Personally, it would seem to take something away from the concept of "birth" to have Christ teleported out of the womb in a flash of light, but perhaps I am misunderstanding what is being claimed to have happened.

I don't think the only choices are "a normal delivery just like my wife experienced" or "Star Trek".  It makes for a convenient strawman, though. 
I think you can say ~ In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and post with charitable and prayerful intentions.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,865
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #137 on: March 24, 2016, 01:24:14 PM »
Guys I see no reason why God would change how vaginas work just to accomadate premodern conceptions of biology. That hymen was broken. And when I get to the pearly gates, that's gonna be the first question I ask. And when I'm proven right, y'all owe me 20 bucks.

There may not be many lawyers in heaven, if at all, but at least it will have an abundance of discussion forum OB/GYNs. 
I think you can say ~ In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and post with charitable and prayerful intentions.

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #138 on: March 24, 2016, 01:37:27 PM »
I don't think the only choices are "a normal delivery just like my wife experienced" or "Star Trek".  It makes for a convenient strawman, though.
What are the other options? I guess I'm having a hard time understanding what is being postulated as having happened. In reading the Protoevangelion, it certainly sounds like a teleportation, but again, perhaps I am misunderstanding. Christ could go through the walls of the tomb or enter the upper room because He had a resurrected body. Was His infant body similar to that?

I'm not trying to be trite, I'm just trying to understand what is being stated because I think that it could be interpreted in a manner that the Theotokos didn't actually give birth, she just carried Christ until He appeared which would be contrary to all sorts of teachings of the Church.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2016, 01:40:57 PM by TheTrisagion »
God bless!

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,751
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #139 on: March 24, 2016, 01:39:26 PM »
I don't think the only choices are "a normal delivery just like my wife experienced" or "Star Trek".  It makes for a convenient strawman, though.
What are the other options? I guess I'm having a hard time understanding what is being postulated as having happened. In reading the Protoevangelion, it certainly sounds like a teleportation, but again, perhaps I am misunderstanding. Christ could go through the walls of the tomb or enter the upper room because He had a resurrected body. Was His infant body similar to that?

Option 3:

His Birth was different but -how- is beyond our understanding

All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #140 on: March 24, 2016, 01:44:44 PM »
I don't think the only choices are "a normal delivery just like my wife experienced" or "Star Trek".  It makes for a convenient strawman, though.
What are the other options? I guess I'm having a hard time understanding what is being postulated as having happened. In reading the Protoevangelion, it certainly sounds like a teleportation, but again, perhaps I am misunderstanding. Christ could go through the walls of the tomb or enter the upper room because He had a resurrected body. Was His infant body similar to that?

Option 3:

His Birth was different but -how- is beyond our understanding
Obviously that is the case, but what is the basis for holding these specific beliefs as it pertains to His birth? There is hymnography which from what I can see in this thread, had been interpreted several different ways by both layman and apparently clergy. There is the Protoevangelion which has various parts that have been accepted and parts not accepted by the Church. There are words like "defilement" and "virginity" that are used, but are understood differently depending on who is reading them. I just don't understand how someone could take a dogmatic stand either way.
God bless!

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Antivoluntarist evangelist
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,811
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #141 on: March 24, 2016, 01:45:00 PM »
The breaking of the seal is considered a form of corruption, and it is considered unfitting that the source of incorruption should enter the world by damaging his mother. Passing through the womb without breaking the seal also prefigures his emergence from the tomb without moving the stone. If anyone has a problem with this, I'm not going to argue about it, but you have a mountain of theology and hymnography against you, including "It is truly meet" which we sing most Sundays.
So your defense of Fr. Hopko, then, is that you find no evidence that he ever spoke of the seal of Mary's virginity having been broken? Not arguing with you on this. Just seeking to understand.

I'm not defending Fr. Hopko because I haven't read the book in question and I don't know what he really meant. All I see is a quote that might be problematic but which is being quoted and interpreted by a hostile writer.

And given that there are those who think Christ was teleported out of the Theotokos's womb in a cloud of light, it may be important to disabuse them of this notion by saying that he really passed through her birth canal. Hence why midwives wash the baby.
Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son
...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,865
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #142 on: March 24, 2016, 01:45:20 PM »
I don't think the only choices are "a normal delivery just like my wife experienced" or "Star Trek".  It makes for a convenient strawman, though.
What are the other options?

I would simply say he was born normally (i.e., a vaginal birth) without breaking the seal.  God is able to do that.  That is more or less the claim of every liturgical text I can recall dealing with the question.  I don't think I've ever seen "teleportation" in any text considered authoritative by the Church. 
I think you can say ~ In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and post with charitable and prayerful intentions.

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Antivoluntarist evangelist
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,811
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #143 on: March 24, 2016, 01:46:48 PM »
I don't think I've ever seen "teleportation" in any text considered authoritative by the Church.
It is an interpretation of the Protoevangelium. As to its authority, I don't give it much.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2016, 01:47:10 PM by NicholasMyra »
Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son
...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,252
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #144 on: March 24, 2016, 02:01:38 PM »
Y'all forgot option 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVZUVeMtYXc

Seriously though, I've never read this whole cloud business in preschismatic Latin literature. It could be there, but I haven't seen it. Seems to only be an Eastern thing that has its roots in the Protoevagelium. And we have no problem in disagreeing with a number of Church Fathers (even outright condemning them as heretics, such as Origen). As for the hymen, just because it breaks under whatever circumstances, doesn't mean that the woman is necessarily no longer a virgin. And who cares if the pre-modern people didn't understand that or not? Did God also make the Sun revolve around the Earth until Galileo as an act of condescension too? I mean, it's there in the scriptures: Sun revolves around the Earth.

I'm not saying people can't believe in the cloud if they want, and I'm not saying that people can't believe in the unbreakable hymen either. All I'm saying is that breaking a hymen shouldn't be controversial as long as a penis wasn't involved.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2016, 02:04:33 PM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline ZealousZeal

  • Cosmic Knowledge Fish
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,980
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #145 on: March 24, 2016, 02:11:00 PM »
I would simply say he was born normally (i.e., a vaginal birth) without breaking the seal.  God is able to do that.

Seriously. I don't understand why people are trying to bring modern medical logic to the virgin birth. You've already accepted that a virgin miraculously conceived a child, who by the way is God, but this is the impossible thing?
You want your belt to buckle, not your chair.

Offline FormerReformer

  • Convertodox of the convertodox
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,723
    • Music and Orthodoxy
  • Faith: Convertodox
  • Jurisdiction: Netodoxy
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #146 on: March 24, 2016, 02:14:27 PM »
I don't think the only choices are "a normal delivery just like my wife experienced" or "Star Trek".  It makes for a convenient strawman, though.
What are the other options? I guess I'm having a hard time understanding what is being postulated as having happened. In reading the Protoevangelion, it certainly sounds like a teleportation, but again, perhaps I am misunderstanding. Christ could go through the walls of the tomb or enter the upper room because He had a resurrected body. Was His infant body similar to that?

Option 3:

His Birth was different but -how- is beyond our understanding
Obviously that is the case, but what is the basis for holding these specific beliefs as it pertains to His birth? There is hymnography which from what I can see in this thread, had been interpreted several different ways by both layman and apparently clergy. There is the Protoevangelion which has various parts that have been accepted and parts not accepted by the Church. There are words like "defilement" and "virginity" that are used, but are understood differently depending on who is reading them. I just don't understand how someone could take a dogmatic stand either way.

Again, "defilement" is better translated as "corruption" or "destruction" - I say we approach any understanding starting with this. Now, whether the corruption or destruction is meant in a physical, spiritual, allegorical, both/and, either/or, paradoxical, etc sense is for people far above my pay grade to state. But that the Theotokos gave birth without something being destroyed seems to be the clear teaching of the Church.
"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,252
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #147 on: March 24, 2016, 02:15:10 PM »
I would simply say he was born normally (i.e., a vaginal birth) without breaking the seal.  God is able to do that.

Seriously. I don't understand why people are trying to bring modern medical logic to the virgin birth. You've already accepted that a virgin miraculously conceived a child, who by the way is God, but this is the impossible thing?

Because it is rooted in a preposterous medical concept. The reason why the Virgin Birth is accepted and not the other in my case is that the first proves that Jesus of Nazareth was and is the Christ. The latter is completely unnecessary for that and is completely rooted in some bogus pre-modern biology.
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline FormerReformer

  • Convertodox of the convertodox
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,723
    • Music and Orthodoxy
  • Faith: Convertodox
  • Jurisdiction: Netodoxy
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #148 on: March 24, 2016, 02:17:20 PM »
As for the hymen, just because it breaks under whatever circumstances, doesn't mean that the woman is necessarily no longer a virgin. And who cares if the pre-modern people didn't understand that or not?
The people with the rocks.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2016, 02:17:30 PM by FormerReformer »
"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!

Offline ZealousZeal

  • Cosmic Knowledge Fish
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,980
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #149 on: March 24, 2016, 02:22:19 PM »
I would simply say he was born normally (i.e., a vaginal birth) without breaking the seal.  God is able to do that.

Seriously. I don't understand why people are trying to bring modern medical logic to the virgin birth. You've already accepted that a virgin miraculously conceived a child, who by the way is God, but this is the impossible thing?

Because it is rooted in a preposterous medical concept.

And a virgin conceiving God is... less preposterous?

Quote
The reason why the Virgin Birth is accepted and not the other in my case is that the first proves that Jesus of Nazareth was and is the Christ. The latter is completely unnecessary for that and is completely rooted in some bogus pre-modern biology.

Oh, well as long as you have the evidence you need, then. Those dumb ancients! Not cleaving to the science which has been believed always, everywhere and by us.
You want your belt to buckle, not your chair.

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #150 on: March 24, 2016, 02:27:25 PM »
I would simply say he was born normally (i.e., a vaginal birth) without breaking the seal.  God is able to do that.

Seriously. I don't understand why people are trying to bring modern medical logic to the virgin birth. You've already accepted that a virgin miraculously conceived a child, who by the way is God, but this is the impossible thing?
Are people doubting whether it could have happened or whether it did happen? Lots of things could have happened when Christ was born, but the question is - did they? When the Apostles who knew Christ and the Theotokos say "it was a virgin birth", that lends a certain level of credence to it as opposed to "there was a book written later, some of which we don't buy, but other stuff we do, we don't know who the author is, but we accept this portion of it because piety obligates us to do so".

I'm not trying to say it couldn't happen, but I suppose I am just a bit more skeptical because there is less proof.
God bless!

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,252
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #151 on: March 24, 2016, 02:33:45 PM »
I would simply say he was born normally (i.e., a vaginal birth) without breaking the seal.  God is able to do that.

Seriously. I don't understand why people are trying to bring modern medical logic to the virgin birth. You've already accepted that a virgin miraculously conceived a child, who by the way is God, but this is the impossible thing?

Because it is rooted in a preposterous medical concept.

And a virgin conceiving God is... less preposterous?

Quote
The reason why the Virgin Birth is accepted and not the other in my case is that the first proves that Jesus of Nazareth was and is the Christ. The latter is completely unnecessary for that and is completely rooted in some bogus pre-modern biology.

Oh, well as long as you have the evidence you need, then. Those dumb ancients! Not cleaving to the science which has been believed always, everywhere and by us.

A virgin birth is totally preposterous, but you missed my point. It was necessary to make it known that Christ was Christ. Your hymen obsession is totally ancillary. And yeah, the ancients were less intelligent than me when it comes to science. I don't see why you think that is an argument in your favor.

What's next? You gonna tell me that God made the Sun actually revolve around the Earth each time that sort of thing is mentioned in the scriptures as an act of condescension? What nonsense.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2016, 02:35:38 PM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline FormerReformer

  • Convertodox of the convertodox
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,723
    • Music and Orthodoxy
  • Faith: Convertodox
  • Jurisdiction: Netodoxy
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #152 on: March 24, 2016, 03:24:30 PM »
The difference being, no one had any wish to physically examine the earth from space and stone it should it fail to live up to the expectations of the science of the time, re: sun orbiting it.
"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,198
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #153 on: March 24, 2016, 03:27:15 PM »
The breaking of the seal is considered a form of corruption, and it is considered unfitting that the source of incorruption should enter the world by damaging his mother. Passing through the womb without breaking the seal also prefigures his emergence from the tomb without moving the stone. If anyone has a problem with this, I'm not going to argue about it, but you have a mountain of theology and hymnography against you, including "It is truly meet" which we sing most Sundays.

I think this makes for good contemplative theology on the subject.  Our new birth in Christ is connected both to Christ's virginal birth and resurrection.  In this manner we become sealed with the Holy Spirit, we who were previously defiled by sin become spiritual virgins by the Holy Spirit.  This seems to be the teaching of our St. Jacob of Serug on the matter:

http://www.saint-mary.net/books/abonaTadrosNew/5-8%20Virginity%20and%20Holy%20Virgins.pdf

She is the sealed Letter of the Word, written and sealed by the Holy Spirit.  She remained a sealed Letter for everyone to read from and admire.  We too are called to be the same.  The Church also is the same.
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 ZealousZeal

  • Cosmic Knowledge Fish
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,980
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #154 on: March 24, 2016, 04:16:04 PM »
A virgin birth is totally preposterous, but you missed my point. It was necessary to make it known that Christ was Christ.

You keep asserting that a virgin birth was necessary for people to know that Christ was Christ but the unbroken seal is preposterous, and I'm saying that they could go hand in hand. It is the proof that the people of the time would be able to understand, that a virgin birth is what took place. A sign a midwife would be able to see and be like, "Whoa! She isn't lying!".

Whether you believe it or not isn't really a concern of mine- you have a lot of hymnography and tradition to hurdle, but people have hurdled greater over less. My only interest in this discussion, such as it is, is just pointing out the internal inconsistency involved in accepting one biological miracle over and against another very related one.

Quote
Your hymen obsession is totally ancillary.

What? I am not obsessed with this topic. Actually, as I already said upthread, I find it really odd to discuss. Again, I am just really surprised that it's an issue for some people to believe this one particular thing in the face of all kinds of other preposterous things we already believe, like that a virgin conceived God, or that bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Christ, or that getting dunked in water remits sin, etc.

Quote
And yeah, the ancients were less intelligent than me when it comes to science. I don't see why you think that is an argument in your favor.

Well, that's kind of the point.

Quote
What's next? You gonna tell me that God made the Sun actually revolve around the Earth each time that sort of thing is mentioned in the scriptures as an act of condescension? What nonsense.

How refreshing! I was wondering what I would say next but now I see that you have decided to take that task upon yourself and win this debate single-handedly. Impressive!
« Last Edit: March 24, 2016, 04:17:02 PM by ZealousZeal »
You want your belt to buckle, not your chair.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,865
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #155 on: March 24, 2016, 09:29:03 PM »
I don't think I've ever seen "teleportation" in any text considered authoritative by the Church.
It is an interpretation of the Protoevangelium. As to its authority, I don't give it much.

I don't think the Church gives it much authority either, so thankfully we don't have to rest merely on yours.  :P

I think you can say ~ In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and post with charitable and prayerful intentions.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,865
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #156 on: March 24, 2016, 09:41:30 PM »
The reason why the Virgin Birth is accepted and not the other in my case is that the first proves that Jesus of Nazareth was and is the Christ.

How does it do that?
I think you can say ~ In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and post with charitable and prayerful intentions.

Offline Minnesotan

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,329
  • Milo Thatch is the ONLY Milo for me. #FreeAtlantis
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #157 on: March 24, 2016, 09:47:56 PM »
I don't think the only choices are "a normal delivery just like my wife experienced" or "Star Trek".  It makes for a convenient strawman, though.
What are the other options?

Maybe she had a healing factor?

Actually, that brings up an interesting question. Are there any records of the Theotokos having experienced pain or any other sort of physical injury at any other times during her life? (Or possibly experiencing an injury and then miraculously healing, unusually fast, without leaving a mark).

There are some people who don't ever feel pain under any circumstances, so the idea of a painless birth isn't that hard to believe.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2016, 09:49:49 PM 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 Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,865
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #158 on: March 24, 2016, 09:48:15 PM »
...Your hymen obsession is totally ancillary.

Someone's obsessed with hymens, but it's not ZealousZeal...

Wait a minute? It's actually controversial that a woman's flesh rips and tears when giving birth?

Sounds like apocryphal nonsense to me. I always understood Mary's virginity as pertaining to whether or not she ever had sex with a guy (Joseph in her case), not whether or not her hymen or vagina tore while birthing Jesus. The latter position sounds like some sort of fetishization of Mary's vagina as the par excellence for vaginas insofar that she wasn't effected in any way by pregnancy.

Guys I see no reason why God would change how vaginas work just to accomadate premodern conceptions of biology. That hymen was broken. And when I get to the pearly gates, that's gonna be the first question I ask. And when I'm proven right, y'all owe me 20 bucks.

As for the hymen, just because it breaks under whatever circumstances, doesn't mean that the woman is necessarily no longer a virgin. And who cares if the pre-modern people didn't understand that or not? Did God also make the Sun revolve around the Earth until Galileo as an act of condescension too? I mean, it's there in the scriptures: Sun revolves around the Earth.

I'm not saying people can't believe in the cloud if they want, and I'm not saying that people can't believe in the unbreakable hymen either. All I'm saying is that breaking a hymen shouldn't be controversial as long as a penis wasn't involved.

Because it is rooted in a preposterous medical concept. The reason why the Virgin Birth is accepted and not the other in my case is that the first proves that Jesus of Nazareth was and is the Christ. The latter is completely unnecessary for that and is completely rooted in some bogus pre-modern biology.
I think you can say ~ In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and post with charitable and prayerful intentions.

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,252
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #159 on: March 24, 2016, 10:00:49 PM »
The reason why the Virgin Birth is accepted and not the other in my case is that the first proves that Jesus of Nazareth was and is the Christ.

How does it do that?

Because it proves the Holy Spirit was involved.

...Your hymen obsession is totally ancillary.

Someone's obsessed with hymens, but it's not ZealousZeal...

Listen, I think her hymen broke. And people are more than welcome to believe otherwise. But I'm not the one, as are some Orthodox apparently, who are either threatening to accuse heresy (obviously not ZealousZeal), or trying to accommodate those who feel so strongly about it. I myself am not particularly interested in even accommodating such a dogmatizing spirit because I don't find the arguments all that convincing.

I'm not the one who brought the topic up. The people who insisted that it remained intact did. I mean, to me this issue is sort of a back door to proclaiming that Mary was without Ancestral Sin aka Immaculately Conceived herself. And if people want to go down that route, that's fine. But for me, her having her hymen broken is a pretty reasonable and acceptable belief, and the moment when someone feels so strongly about it that they want to dogmatize it, yeah I feel a little on edge.

It is the proof that the people of the time would be able to understand, that a virgin birth is what took place.

Is the angel of the Lord consoling Joseph of her virtue not good enough? Matthew 1:19.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2016, 10:10:38 PM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,865
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #160 on: March 24, 2016, 10:12:54 PM »
The reason why the Virgin Birth is accepted and not the other in my case is that the first proves that Jesus of Nazareth was and is the Christ.

How does it do that?

Because it proves the Holy Spirit was involved.

How? 

Quote
Listen, I think her hymen broke. And people are more than welcome to believe otherwise. But I'm not the one, as are some Orthodox apparently, who are either threatening to accuse heresy (obviously not ZealousZeal), or trying to accommodate those who feel so strongly about it. I'm not the one who brought the topic up. The people who insisted that it remain intact did. I mean, to me this issue is sort of a back door to proclaiming that Mary was without Ancestral Sin aka Immaculately Conceived herself. And if people want to go down that route, that's fine. But for me, her having her hymen broken is a pretty reasonable and acceptable belief, and the moment when someone feels so strongly about it that they want to dogmatize it, yeah I feel a little on edge.

So, like Volnutt, this is more about you than it is about anything else.  I'll give you guys one thing, your honesty is refreshing. 
I think you can say ~ In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and post with charitable and prayerful intentions.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,198
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #161 on: March 24, 2016, 10:16:27 PM »
Is her perpetual virginity considered dogma?  Would you feel on edge to say this is true and necessary?
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 Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,252
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #162 on: March 24, 2016, 10:23:26 PM »
The reason why the Virgin Birth is accepted and not the other in my case is that the first proves that Jesus of Nazareth was and is the Christ.

How does it do that?

Because it proves the Holy Spirit was involved.

How? 

How else would it happen, if not God? It's the only explanatory factor.

Quote
Listen, I think her hymen broke. And people are more than welcome to believe otherwise. But I'm not the one, as are some Orthodox apparently, who are either threatening to accuse heresy (obviously not ZealousZeal), or trying to accommodate those who feel so strongly about it. I'm not the one who brought the topic up. The people who insisted that it remain intact did. I mean, to me this issue is sort of a back door to proclaiming that Mary was without Ancestral Sin aka Immaculately Conceived herself. And if people want to go down that route, that's fine. But for me, her having her hymen broken is a pretty reasonable and acceptable belief, and the moment when someone feels so strongly about it that they want to dogmatize it, yeah I feel a little on edge.

So, like Volnutt, this is more about you than it is about anything else.  I'll give you guys one thing, your honesty is refreshing.

I'm not sure what is wrong with me having a personal interest in the matter. Bid deal if I do. Someone attributed a belief to Father Hopko that is either close to my own or exactly it, and then used it as a grounds to doubt his orthodoxy. I'm not sure how my personal interests effect the merits of the debate. The ideas here are separate from the persons.

Is her perpetual virginity considered dogma?  Would you feel on edge to say this is true and necessary?

A question that begs food for thought indeed. I'm inclined to say no to the latter question, although the reason eludes me at the moment.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2016, 10:24:52 PM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,198
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #163 on: March 24, 2016, 10:31:20 PM »
I think it's best to think about how this affects me.  We see the Theotokos is the most ideal Christian, the mother of all believers, the perfect icon of the Church, the patroness of Eve or the second Eve, the new Ark/Altar/Mercy Seat/Throne of the Kingdom of Heaven.

All these pertain to something we can be, albeit in a spiritual sense but no less real than it is in her physically.  A contemplation on the seal remaining sealed while truly giving birth is a sign of our spiritual state as well.  Her perpetual virginity stems from this theological contemplation as well.  We too are "perpetual virgins" in the Church, even if we are married and have children.

That's why I don't think it's far-fetched to see why the Church chanted about her "seal" remaining shut.  It's a sign of our spiritual seal being forever protected in Christ.
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 Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,865
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #164 on: March 24, 2016, 10:41:52 PM »
How? 

How else would it happen, if not God? It's the only explanatory factor.

"The Virgin Birth proves Jesus is the Christ."

"How?"

"It proves the Holy Spirit was involved."

"How?"

"Um, God."

Yours is an even less convincing argument than those you oppose. 
I think you can say ~ In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and post with charitable and prayerful intentions.

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,252
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #165 on: March 24, 2016, 11:26:57 PM »
How? 

How else would it happen, if not God? It's the only explanatory factor.

"The Virgin Birth proves Jesus is the Christ."

"How?"

"It proves the Holy Spirit was involved."

"How?"

"Um, God."

Yours is an even less convincing argument than those you oppose.

What kind of ridiculous sophistry is this? If it is a virgin birth, then due to lack of a natural explanation it is obviously a miracle, which is the work of the Holy Spirit. If the child is the result of the Holy Spirit and none other, then it is obviously the Son of God. If you find that hard to grasp, then go re-read the gospels. At this point, it's your problem, not mine.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2016, 11:28:55 PM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #166 on: March 25, 2016, 12:48:35 AM »
I'm not the one who brought the topic up. The people who insisted that it remained intact did.
Actually... No. It was Volnutt who brought it up, and he's been arguing much as you have.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2016, 12:48:57 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,252
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #167 on: March 25, 2016, 01:17:08 AM »
I'm not the one who brought the topic up. The people who insisted that it remained intact did.
Actually... No. It was Volnutt who brought it up, and he's been arguing much as you have.

lol no

I may be one of the few people who didn't like his podcast's, books or opinions on liturgical practice ideas.
I don't know what there wasn't to like. I don't expect it to be perfect. At worst, his talks could sometimes be rambling maybe, but I thought that they were packed with deep thoughts. If he made it extra systematic and outlined, it could seem too academic in tone for interest.

Saying that RC church is just as legitimate as the EO and that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, to name a few. He was a very nice man, but I dislike that he would go out of his way to scandelize people by saying heretical things, and then tell people that they misunderstood him, like what Francis does. As a clergyman he should know better. I know a few people who were introduced to his work after chrismation and they were somewhat confused/upset.

Point is, people come to Orthodoxy to escape the Catholic/Protestant theological and liturgical innovating, only to find out that it is also going on here and that people are agreeing with it (Schmemenite reforms for example). Its heartbreaking for some.

Are you sure his arguments don't just kick the crap out of yours and your faction's, which peeves you? Hence the libel in your post?

His argument that the Virgin was not a virgin during or after giving birth goes against the churches hymnography and iconography. It's not about factions. Believe in the ever-virginity is required for communion.

My point is that as a priest he should know better than to use his position of authority to stir people up unnecessarily. He has said some things in his books and podcasts that are bad, yet i get the feeling that he doesnt actually believe what he says. But if he didnt than his attempt to rile people up was equally wrong.

Im not saying hes not in paradise, but I get worried about the post mortem praise that goes on with people like Hopko, Rose, and Schmemenn. They've done just as much damage as theyve healed in some cases. Not intentionally.

First mention of it being a required dogma regarding that hymen and first mention of hymens in general. Sure, Volnutt clarified what dudebro was referring to, but dudebro later followed up confirming Vol's clarification.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2016, 01:27:18 AM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #168 on: March 25, 2016, 01:26:36 AM »
I'm not the one who brought the topic up. The people who insisted that it remained intact did.
Actually... No. It was Volnutt who brought it up, and he's been arguing much as you have.

lol no

I may be one of the few people who didn't like his podcast's, books or opinions on liturgical practice ideas.
I don't know what there wasn't to like. I don't expect it to be perfect. At worst, his talks could sometimes be rambling maybe, but I thought that they were packed with deep thoughts. If he made it extra systematic and outlined, it could seem too academic in tone for interest.

Saying that RC church is just as legitimate as the EO and that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, to name a few. He was a very nice man, but I dislike that he would go out of his way to scandelize people by saying heretical things, and then tell people that they misunderstood him, like what Francis does. As a clergyman he should know better. I know a few people who were introduced to his work after chrismation and they were somewhat confused/upset.

Point is, people come to Orthodoxy to escape the Catholic/Protestant theological and liturgical innovating, only to find out that it is also going on here and that people are agreeing with it (Schmemenite reforms for example). Its heartbreaking for some.

Are you sure his arguments don't just kick the crap out of yours and your faction's, which peeves you? Hence the libel in your post?

His argument that the Virgin was not a virgin during or after giving birth goes against the churches hymnography and iconography. It's not about factions. Believe in the ever-virginity is required for communion.

My point is that as a priest he should know better than to use his position of authority to stir people up unnecessarily. He has said some things in his books and podcasts that are bad, yet i get the feeling that he doesnt actually believe what he says. But if he didnt than his attempt to rile people up was equally wrong.

Im not saying hes not in paradise, but I get worried about the post mortem praise that goes on with people like Hopko, Rose, and Schmemenn. They've done just as much damage as theyve healed in some cases. Not intentionally.

First mention of it being a required dogma regarding that hymen.
The laugh's on you, bud. :laugh: Nowhere in that post does tcolon mention a hymen. Volnutt does that in the next post. (The Ctrl-F search function doesn't lie.)
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,252
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #169 on: March 25, 2016, 01:31:42 AM »
I'm not the one who brought the topic up. The people who insisted that it remained intact did.
Actually... No. It was Volnutt who brought it up, and he's been arguing much as you have.

lol no

I may be one of the few people who didn't like his podcast's, books or opinions on liturgical practice ideas.
I don't know what there wasn't to like. I don't expect it to be perfect. At worst, his talks could sometimes be rambling maybe, but I thought that they were packed with deep thoughts. If he made it extra systematic and outlined, it could seem too academic in tone for interest.

Saying that RC church is just as legitimate as the EO and that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, to name a few. He was a very nice man, but I dislike that he would go out of his way to scandelize people by saying heretical things, and then tell people that they misunderstood him, like what Francis does. As a clergyman he should know better. I know a few people who were introduced to his work after chrismation and they were somewhat confused/upset.

Point is, people come to Orthodoxy to escape the Catholic/Protestant theological and liturgical innovating, only to find out that it is also going on here and that people are agreeing with it (Schmemenite reforms for example). Its heartbreaking for some.

Are you sure his arguments don't just kick the crap out of yours and your faction's, which peeves you? Hence the libel in your post?

His argument that the Virgin was not a virgin during or after giving birth goes against the churches hymnography and iconography. It's not about factions. Believe in the ever-virginity is required for communion.

My point is that as a priest he should know better than to use his position of authority to stir people up unnecessarily. He has said some things in his books and podcasts that are bad, yet i get the feeling that he doesnt actually believe what he says. But if he didnt than his attempt to rile people up was equally wrong.

Im not saying hes not in paradise, but I get worried about the post mortem praise that goes on with people like Hopko, Rose, and Schmemenn. They've done just as much damage as theyve healed in some cases. Not intentionally.

First mention of it being a required dogma regarding that hymen.
The laugh's on you, bud. :laugh: Nowhere in that post does tcolon mention a hymen. Volnutt does that in the next post. (The Ctrl-F search function doesn't lie.)

Might I suggest exercising your reading comprehension skills? tcolon did not indeed use the word hymen, but mentioned breakage. Volnutt was also indeed the first person to use the technical term of hymen. tcolon then proceeded with the conversation that such matters of either the hymen or womb or whatever fleshly part involved not ripping as a required dogma to be considered orthodox, which he had said in his first post on the matter. But if you still want to dance around the semantics of "Oh well, he still technically didn't say hymen. It was Vol," then feel free to parade that around as a victory. But such nitpicky attitudes at the expense of basic reading comprehension is symptomatic of a serious flaw.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2016, 01:37:52 AM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #170 on: March 25, 2016, 03:35:39 AM »
I'm not the one who brought the topic up. The people who insisted that it remained intact did.
Actually... No. It was Volnutt who brought it up, and he's been arguing much as you have.

lol no

I may be one of the few people who didn't like his podcast's, books or opinions on liturgical practice ideas.
I don't know what there wasn't to like. I don't expect it to be perfect. At worst, his talks could sometimes be rambling maybe, but I thought that they were packed with deep thoughts. If he made it extra systematic and outlined, it could seem too academic in tone for interest.

Saying that RC church is just as legitimate as the EO and that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, to name a few. He was a very nice man, but I dislike that he would go out of his way to scandelize people by saying heretical things, and then tell people that they misunderstood him, like what Francis does. As a clergyman he should know better. I know a few people who were introduced to his work after chrismation and they were somewhat confused/upset.

Point is, people come to Orthodoxy to escape the Catholic/Protestant theological and liturgical innovating, only to find out that it is also going on here and that people are agreeing with it (Schmemenite reforms for example). Its heartbreaking for some.

Are you sure his arguments don't just kick the crap out of yours and your faction's, which peeves you? Hence the libel in your post?

His argument that the Virgin was not a virgin during or after giving birth goes against the churches hymnography and iconography. It's not about factions. Believe in the ever-virginity is required for communion.

My point is that as a priest he should know better than to use his position of authority to stir people up unnecessarily. He has said some things in his books and podcasts that are bad, yet i get the feeling that he doesnt actually believe what he says. But if he didnt than his attempt to rile people up was equally wrong.

Im not saying hes not in paradise, but I get worried about the post mortem praise that goes on with people like Hopko, Rose, and Schmemenn. They've done just as much damage as theyve healed in some cases. Not intentionally.

First mention of it being a required dogma regarding that hymen.
The laugh's on you, bud. :laugh: Nowhere in that post does tcolon mention a hymen. Volnutt does that in the next post. (The Ctrl-F search function doesn't lie.)

Might I suggest exercising your reading comprehension skills? tcolon did not indeed use the word hymen, but mentioned breakage.
You might suggest that I exercise my reading comprehension skills, but it doesn't appear that your reading comprehension skills are any better. For instance, tcolon was also not the first to mention breakage. Once again that honor belongs to Volnutt. Seeing, though, that you haven't been reading all that well, I'm not surprised that you missed that.

Volnutt was also indeed the first person to use the technical term of hymen. tcolon then proceeded with the conversation that such matters of either the hymen or womb or whatever fleshly part involved not ripping as a required dogma to be considered orthodox, which he had said in his first post on the matter. But if you still want to dance around the semantics of "Oh well, he still technically didn't say hymen. It was Vol," then feel free to parade that around as a victory. But such nitpicky attitudes at the expense of basic reading comprehension is symptomatic of a serious flaw.
Who's being nitpicky at the expense of basic reading comprehension? I'll give you a hint. It's not me. For another example, tcolon didn't mention anything about the hymen or the womb of the Theotokos not ripping, nor did he assert that belief in such a detailed biological fact is required to be Orthodox. The only dogma tcolon cited as necessary for Orthodox faith is the dogma of Mary's ever-virginity, a doctrine with which even I am not inclined to disagree.

Now it is true that I'm still waiting for tcolon to substantiate his claims that Fr. Hopko taught heresy and that he did so with the intent to rile other people up needlessly, but I am going to correct the record when I see you misrepresenting tcolon so grossly.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2016, 03:38:30 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline FinnJames

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 897
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Finland
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #171 on: March 25, 2016, 03:50:22 AM »
Do we really have to take the Virgin Birth as literally as we read off the numbers in a telephone directory? Does it really lose any of its significance if understood as a Truth at the symbolic/mythological level--a mystery--rather than a biological fact?
The resurrection of Christ... Is it merely a symbolic/mythological truth, or is it a biological fact?

My belief in the resurrection of Christ and its power would not be shaken if it were proved that thieves had broken into the tomb and stolen Jesus' body. Can you say the same?
No, I cannot. How is your faith any stronger or better because you can believe in something proven to be a despicable lie?

On what sort of evidence is faith in things eternal and unseen based?
On the intrusion of the eternal and unseen into the realm of the temporal and seen through historical events. If Jesus did not rise bodily and materially from the dead, then there is no resurrection.

I can see that you need to take everything quite literally and I do not need to do so. Let that be an end to our 'discussion' on this matter. I've noticed you, moderator PeterTheAleut, tend to goad people into making comments that will earn them green-text warnings and penalty points so don't want to continue replying to you here.
No, I don't bait others into getting themselves in trouble. I also don't need to take everything literally. You simply boasted of your ability to believe in the power of a resurrection that may have never happened and may in fact be a lie. That's just not Christian, nor is it even reasonable. If Christ did not rise bodily from the dead, then there simply is no power of the resurrection to transform our lives.

Interesting that you should leap to the negative judgmental word 'boasted' in your reply.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #172 on: March 25, 2016, 03:57:52 AM »
Do we really have to take the Virgin Birth as literally as we read off the numbers in a telephone directory? Does it really lose any of its significance if understood as a Truth at the symbolic/mythological level--a mystery--rather than a biological fact?
The resurrection of Christ... Is it merely a symbolic/mythological truth, or is it a biological fact?

My belief in the resurrection of Christ and its power would not be shaken if it were proved that thieves had broken into the tomb and stolen Jesus' body. Can you say the same?
No, I cannot. How is your faith any stronger or better because you can believe in something proven to be a despicable lie?

On what sort of evidence is faith in things eternal and unseen based?
On the intrusion of the eternal and unseen into the realm of the temporal and seen through historical events. If Jesus did not rise bodily and materially from the dead, then there is no resurrection.

I can see that you need to take everything quite literally and I do not need to do so. Let that be an end to our 'discussion' on this matter. I've noticed you, moderator PeterTheAleut, tend to goad people into making comments that will earn them green-text warnings and penalty points so don't want to continue replying to you here.
No, I don't bait others into getting themselves in trouble. I also don't need to take everything literally. You simply boasted of your ability to believe in the power of a resurrection that may have never happened and may in fact be a lie. That's just not Christian, nor is it even reasonable. If Christ did not rise bodily from the dead, then there simply is no power of the resurrection to transform our lives.

Interesting that you should leap to the negative judgmental word 'boasted' in your reply.
James, I think you have far bigger fish to fry than whether the word "boasted" properly describes something you said. For instance, how is it possible to believe in the transformative power of a resurrection that never happened?
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline FinnJames

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 897
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Finland
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #173 on: March 25, 2016, 04:56:04 AM »

For instance, how is it possible to believe in the transformative power of a resurrection that never happened?

Please note that I am not now claiming--nor never have claimed--that the resurrection did not happen. What I do claim, though, is that faith that needs historical proof of the virgin birth or resurrection stands on a very shaky foundation since that foundation is always in danger of being disproved. (Perhaps that is why Christianity has in general always been so insistent on uniformity of belief? One little belief challenged and the whole foundation collapses like a house of cards.) Much better, I think, to look at what we're told of what Jesus did while alive and how that transformed people's lives and continues to do so.

Not sure if it covers this, but the following comes to mind: "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." (John 20:29)

« Last Edit: March 25, 2016, 05:23:48 AM by FinnJames »

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,252
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #174 on: March 25, 2016, 08:33:18 AM »
I'm not the one who brought the topic up. The people who insisted that it remained intact did.
Actually... No. It was Volnutt who brought it up, and he's been arguing much as you have.

lol no

I may be one of the few people who didn't like his podcast's, books or opinions on liturgical practice ideas.
I don't know what there wasn't to like. I don't expect it to be perfect. At worst, his talks could sometimes be rambling maybe, but I thought that they were packed with deep thoughts. If he made it extra systematic and outlined, it could seem too academic in tone for interest.

Saying that RC church is just as legitimate as the EO and that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, to name a few. He was a very nice man, but I dislike that he would go out of his way to scandelize people by saying heretical things, and then tell people that they misunderstood him, like what Francis does. As a clergyman he should know better. I know a few people who were introduced to his work after chrismation and they were somewhat confused/upset.

Point is, people come to Orthodoxy to escape the Catholic/Protestant theological and liturgical innovating, only to find out that it is also going on here and that people are agreeing with it (Schmemenite reforms for example). Its heartbreaking for some.

Are you sure his arguments don't just kick the crap out of yours and your faction's, which peeves you? Hence the libel in your post?

His argument that the Virgin was not a virgin during or after giving birth goes against the churches hymnography and iconography. It's not about factions. Believe in the ever-virginity is required for communion.

My point is that as a priest he should know better than to use his position of authority to stir people up unnecessarily. He has said some things in his books and podcasts that are bad, yet i get the feeling that he doesnt actually believe what he says. But if he didnt than his attempt to rile people up was equally wrong.

Im not saying hes not in paradise, but I get worried about the post mortem praise that goes on with people like Hopko, Rose, and Schmemenn. They've done just as much damage as theyve healed in some cases. Not intentionally.

First mention of it being a required dogma regarding that hymen.
The laugh's on you, bud. :laugh: Nowhere in that post does tcolon mention a hymen. Volnutt does that in the next post. (The Ctrl-F search function doesn't lie.)

Might I suggest exercising your reading comprehension skills? tcolon did not indeed use the word hymen, but mentioned breakage.
You might suggest that I exercise my reading comprehension skills, but it doesn't appear that your reading comprehension skills are any better. For instance, tcolon was also not the first to mention breakage. Once again that honor belongs to Volnutt. Seeing, though, that you haven't been reading all that well, I'm not surprised that you missed that.

Volnutt was also indeed the first person to use the technical term of hymen. tcolon then proceeded with the conversation that such matters of either the hymen or womb or whatever fleshly part involved not ripping as a required dogma to be considered orthodox, which he had said in his first post on the matter. But if you still want to dance around the semantics of "Oh well, he still technically didn't say hymen. It was Vol," then feel free to parade that around as a victory. But such nitpicky attitudes at the expense of basic reading comprehension is symptomatic of a serious flaw.
Who's being nitpicky at the expense of basic reading comprehension? I'll give you a hint. It's not me. For another example, tcolon didn't mention anything about the hymen or the womb of the Theotokos not ripping, nor did he assert that belief in such a detailed biological fact is required to be Orthodox. The only dogma tcolon cited as necessary for Orthodox faith is the dogma of Mary's ever-virginity, a doctrine with which even I am not inclined to disagree.

Now it is true that I'm still waiting for tcolon to substantiate his claims that Fr. Hopko taught heresy and that he did so with the intent to rile other people up needlessly, but I am going to correct the record when I see you misrepresenting tcolon so grossly.

Obviously you need to. Because Vollnut didn't post until tcolon brought it up in an answer to a question. tcolon clearly mentioned that the flesh ripping runs contrary to the idea of ever-virginity and Orthodoxy. I don't think it does. It's not difficult. Learn to read. And yes, my reading comprehension skills are clearly far superior to yours. You've done nothing but take people's arguments out of context for much of this thread, such as focusing on Vollnut's secondary reasons for arguments as though they were primary reasons.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2016, 08:37:02 AM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,017
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South (OCA)
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #175 on: March 25, 2016, 08:42:38 AM »
FOUR PAGES OF THIS???!!!



O Lord and Master of my life, take from me the spirit of sloth, despair, lust of power, and idle talk.

But give rather the spirit of chastity, humility, patience, and love to Thy servant.

Yea, O Lord and King, grant me to see my own transgressions, and not to judge my brother, for blessed art Thou, unto ages of ages. Amen.

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,252
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #176 on: March 25, 2016, 09:16:00 AM »
I'll drop it.
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Elisha

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,908
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #177 on: March 25, 2016, 10:26:09 AM »
FOUR PAGES OF THIS???!!!



O Lord and Master of my life, take from me the spirit of sloth, despair, lust of power, and idle talk.

But give rather the spirit of chastity, humility, patience, and love to Thy servant.

Yea, O Lord and King, grant me to see my own transgressions, and not to judge my brother, for blessed art Thou, unto ages of ages. Amen.

Exactly.

I see a bunch of posts....blah blah blah.  Whatevs.  Move on to the next subject.   ;D

Offline mike

  • A sexual pervert with limited English reading comprehension
  • Protostrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 24,872
  • Polish Laser Jesus shooting down schismatics
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #178 on: March 25, 2016, 10:45:28 AM »
FOUR PAGES OF THIS???!!!


There are few as interesting topics for theologians (or "theologians") to discuss as vaginas.
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?
"No one is paying attention to your post reports"
Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread
« Reply #179 on: March 25, 2016, 11:49:06 AM »
I'm not the one who brought the topic up. The people who insisted that it remained intact did.
Actually... No. It was Volnutt who brought it up, and he's been arguing much as you have.

lol no

I may be one of the few people who didn't like his podcast's, books or opinions on liturgical practice ideas.
I don't know what there wasn't to like. I don't expect it to be perfect. At worst, his talks could sometimes be rambling maybe, but I thought that they were packed with deep thoughts. If he made it extra systematic and outlined, it could seem too academic in tone for interest.

Saying that RC church is just as legitimate as the EO and that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, to name a few. He was a very nice man, but I dislike that he would go out of his way to scandelize people by saying heretical things, and then tell people that they misunderstood him, like what Francis does. As a clergyman he should know better. I know a few people who were introduced to his work after chrismation and they were somewhat confused/upset.

Point is, people come to Orthodoxy to escape the Catholic/Protestant theological and liturgical innovating, only to find out that it is also going on here and that people are agreeing with it (Schmemenite reforms for example). Its heartbreaking for some.

Are you sure his arguments don't just kick the crap out of yours and your faction's, which peeves you? Hence the libel in your post?

His argument that the Virgin was not a virgin during or after giving birth goes against the churches hymnography and iconography. It's not about factions. Believe in the ever-virginity is required for communion.

My point is that as a priest he should know better than to use his position of authority to stir people up unnecessarily. He has said some things in his books and podcasts that are bad, yet i get the feeling that he doesnt actually believe what he says. But if he didnt than his attempt to rile people up was equally wrong.

Im not saying hes not in paradise, but I get worried about the post mortem praise that goes on with people like Hopko, Rose, and Schmemenn. They've done just as much damage as theyve healed in some cases. Not intentionally.

First mention of it being a required dogma regarding that hymen.
The laugh's on you, bud. :laugh: Nowhere in that post does tcolon mention a hymen. Volnutt does that in the next post. (The Ctrl-F search function doesn't lie.)

Might I suggest exercising your reading comprehension skills? tcolon did not indeed use the word hymen, but mentioned breakage.
You might suggest that I exercise my reading comprehension skills, but it doesn't appear that your reading comprehension skills are any better. For instance, tcolon was also not the first to mention breakage. Once again that honor belongs to Volnutt. Seeing, though, that you haven't been reading all that well, I'm not surprised that you missed that.

Volnutt was also indeed the first person to use the technical term of hymen. tcolon then proceeded with the conversation that such matters of either the hymen or womb or whatever fleshly part involved not ripping as a required dogma to be considered orthodox, which he had said in his first post on the matter. But if you still want to dance around the semantics of "Oh well, he still technically didn't say hymen. It was Vol," then feel free to parade that around as a victory. But such nitpicky attitudes at the expense of basic reading comprehension is symptomatic of a serious flaw.
Who's being nitpicky at the expense of basic reading comprehension? I'll give you a hint. It's not me. For another example, tcolon didn't mention anything about the hymen or the womb of the Theotokos not ripping, nor did he assert that belief in such a detailed biological fact is required to be Orthodox. The only dogma tcolon cited as necessary for Orthodox faith is the dogma of Mary's ever-virginity, a doctrine with which even I am not inclined to disagree.

Now it is true that I'm still waiting for tcolon to substantiate his claims that Fr. Hopko taught heresy and that he did so with the intent to rile other people up needlessly, but I am going to correct the record when I see you misrepresenting tcolon so grossly.

Obviously you need to. Because Vollnut didn't post until tcolon brought it up in an answer to a question. tcolon clearly mentioned that the flesh ripping runs contrary to the idea of ever-virginity and Orthodoxy.
Actually, tcolon never said that. He never said anything about ripping.

Quote
I don't think it does. It's not difficult. Learn to read. And yes, my reading comprehension skills are clearly far superior to yours. You've done nothing but take people's arguments out of context for much of this thread, such as focusing on Vollnut's secondary reasons for arguments as though they were primary reasons.
That has nothing to do with reading comprehension. That's a judgment call as to what constitutes primary and secondary arguments, a judgment with which I disagree. Reading comprehension is recognizing what people did and did not say and understanding it. Clearly you do not understand if you have to be corrected in every post because you attributed to someone else something he clearly did not say.
Not all who wander are lost.