OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 15, 2014, 11:10:47 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Is smoking marijuana a sin?  (Read 38209 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #315 on: February 24, 2013, 02:38:56 AM »

 
No, it is not that easy.

Yes, it certainly is that easy.  Your disagreement does not change this fact in any way.

You need to explain exactly why smoking marijuana is a sin, and when challenged on your reasoning,

I already have, in this very thread.

you need to answer the challenges from sources outside yourself.

Not really.  Experience is life’s greatest teacher, especially when your occupation puts you smack dab in the middle of the topic being discussed.  But, again, I have.

I've only seen you give feeble attempts at both.
Then you didn’t read this thread much at all.

I'm sure you can do better.

I already did.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #316 on: February 24, 2013, 02:40:08 AM »

What's with Orthodox Christian forums and passionate debates on pot?  I saw the same thing on the Ancient Faith forum.

Good question.  There should be passionate unity on the issue, but modern times has altered human perception of right and wrong.  It's a sad thing to see, but it has happened.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #317 on: February 24, 2013, 02:46:52 AM »


What's with Orthodox Christian forums and passionate debates on pot?
Why is that a bad thing?
Aren't we supposed to be discussing how to be better people, not how to engage in criminal activities?
But the argument is, the laws are unjust...as if that really makes any difference, in any way.  This is "why" so many people violated federal laws and state laws before any of the state laws were changed (sin) and feel they were justified in doing so, even though federal law still says it is illegal (sin).  Additionally, they seek loop holes rather than truth in the Church and the Scriptures to find a way to do these things rather than follow the path they KNOW they should in the effort to be better Christians (sin).  It’s easier to do bad than good (sin). 

Even if they didn’t already know it was wrong to consume marijuana, which they do know (sin), they never stop to ask two simple questions:
1 –Does this glorify God?  If so, how?
2 – Would Jesus have REALLY condoned its consumption?

The answer to both, of course, is no, but that would destroy their efforts to be able to get high (sin) with a clear conscience. 

This isn’t the only thing they do this with.  There is homosexuality, infidelity, fornication, theft, abortion and a assortment of other sins.  Then they point to the other sins to justify the sin they want to not be sin.  It’s pure craziness, insanity.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2013, 02:51:08 AM by Kerdy » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,150


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #318 on: February 24, 2013, 02:47:03 AM »

No, it is not that easy.

Yes, it certainly is that easy.  Your disagreement does not change this fact in any way.
How is it that easy to recognize that the consumption of marijuana is wrong? Because you say so?

you need to answer the challenges from sources outside yourself.

Not really.  Experience is life’s greatest teacher, especially when your occupation puts you smack dab in the middle of the topic being discussed.  But, again, I have.
You're extrapolating universal generalizations from your own experience. That's a logical fallacy.

I've only seen you give feeble attempts at both.
Then you didn’t read this thread much at all.
Actually, I have read this thread, yet I see nothing that changes my perception of your retorts.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2013, 02:47:21 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #319 on: February 24, 2013, 02:51:37 AM »

No, it is not that easy.

Yes, it certainly is that easy.  Your disagreement does not change this fact in any way.
How is it that easy to recognize that the consumption of marijuana is wrong? Because you say so?

you need to answer the challenges from sources outside yourself.

Not really.  Experience is life’s greatest teacher, especially when your occupation puts you smack dab in the middle of the topic being discussed.  But, again, I have.
You're extrapolating universal generalizations from your own experience. That's a logical fallacy.

I've only seen you give feeble attempts at both.
Then you didn’t read this thread much at all.
Actually, I have read this thread, yet I see nothing that changes my perception of your retorts.

Ok then.
Logged
Nadege
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


« Reply #320 on: February 24, 2013, 02:55:55 AM »

But the argument is, the laws are unjust.
And I don't agree.  And I just had a drink the other day with a complete stranger at Hoolihan's, and my toast was: "Let's drink to our dear Americans in this beautiful prosperous country who think they got a rough deal and think their laws are awful and government bad, because they have no idea how good they have it as compared to where you and I are from."

But I'm not here to argue or protest against anyone's right to speak their mind.  Freedom of speech is another beautiful attribute about this God-blessed country.  Smiley

Church?  American churches are open, and beautiful, and well taken care of - and empty.  There are places where you can't go to church freely, or practice your religion freely, or be a free person at all.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2013, 03:03:35 AM by Nadege » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,150


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #321 on: February 24, 2013, 02:59:32 AM »

No, it is not that easy.

Yes, it certainly is that easy.  Your disagreement does not change this fact in any way.
How is it that easy to recognize that the consumption of marijuana is wrong? Because you say so?

you need to answer the challenges from sources outside yourself.

Not really.  Experience is life’s greatest teacher, especially when your occupation puts you smack dab in the middle of the topic being discussed.  But, again, I have.
You're extrapolating universal generalizations from your own experience. That's a logical fallacy.

I've only seen you give feeble attempts at both.
Then you didn’t read this thread much at all.
Actually, I have read this thread, yet I see nothing that changes my perception of your retorts.

Ok then.
So, what are you going to do to prove your point that the smoking of marijuana is a sin in and of itself? The key here is that you must prove that it's impossible to smoke an amount of marijuana so small that one does not get high from it. Merely citing your personal experience will not convince me, since I regard that as mere anecdotal evidence, evidence that has a much higher chance of being unreliable because it cannot be investigated scientifically. You need to cite source documents outside yourself, preferably peer reviewed documents from scientific/medical journals.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2013, 03:06:14 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #322 on: February 24, 2013, 03:09:46 AM »

But the argument is, the laws are unjust.
And I don't agree.  And I just had a drink the other day with a complete stranger at Hoolihan's, and my toast was: "Let's drink to our dear Americans in this beautiful prosperous country who think they got a rough deal and think their laws are awful and government bad, because they have no idea how good they have it as compared to where you and I are from."

But I'm not here to argue or protest against anyone's right to speak their mind.  Freedom of speech is another beautiful attribute about this God-blessed country.  Smiley

Church?  American churches are open, and beautiful, and well taken care of - and empty.  There are places where you can't go to church freely, or practice your religion freely, or be a free person at all.

Sort of puts getting wasted on pot in perspective.
Logged
Nadege
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


« Reply #323 on: February 24, 2013, 03:13:27 AM »

But the argument is, the laws are unjust.
And I don't agree.  And I just had a drink the other day with a complete stranger at Hoolihan's, and my toast was: "Let's drink to our dear Americans in this beautiful prosperous country who think they got a rough deal and think their laws are awful and government bad, because they have no idea how good they have it as compared to where you and I are from."

But I'm not here to argue or protest against anyone's right to speak their mind.  Freedom of speech is another beautiful attribute about this God-blessed country.  Smiley

Church?  American churches are open, and beautiful, and well taken care of - and empty.  There are places where you can't go to church freely, or practice your religion freely, or be a free person at all.

Sort of puts getting wasted on pot in perspective.
Whatever it is you mean.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2013, 03:15:44 AM by Nadege » Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #324 on: February 24, 2013, 03:16:27 AM »

No, it is not that easy.

Yes, it certainly is that easy.  Your disagreement does not change this fact in any way.
How is it that easy to recognize that the consumption of marijuana is wrong? Because you say so?

you need to answer the challenges from sources outside yourself.

Not really.  Experience is life’s greatest teacher, especially when your occupation puts you smack dab in the middle of the topic being discussed.  But, again, I have.
You're extrapolating universal generalizations from your own experience. That's a logical fallacy.

I've only seen you give feeble attempts at both.
Then you didn’t read this thread much at all.
Actually, I have read this thread, yet I see nothing that changes my perception of your retorts.

Ok then.
So, what are you going to do to prove your point that the smoking of marijuana is a sin in and of itself? The key here is that you must prove that it's impossible to smoke an amount of marijuana so small that one does not get high from it. Merely citing your personal experience will not convince me, since I regard that as mere anecdotal evidence, evidence that has a much higher chance of being unreliable because it cannot be investigated scientifically. You need to cite source documents outside yourself, preferably peer reviewed documents from scientific/medical journals.

I don’t need to convince.  You already know I am right.  You are just playing devil’s advocate.  And even if you are not, which I strongly suspect you are, I still don’t have to do this unless my opinions are less than someone else’s.  The thing is, I have 2000 years of Christian history to support what I have said.  What does the opposite have?  A few decades of pot smokers.  I think I will stick with what the Church has always stood for and taught, thanks.  Unless, of course, you or someone else can prove 2000 years of Church teachings wrong...

Bolded portion:
Right after the same thing is provided for the opposite, which has already been asked for and never provided.  Your demand is a little late in the debate on this thread.  

EDIT:
And since when do peer reviewed medical journals dictate sin?  Oh, that’s right…they don’t.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2013, 03:20:45 AM by Kerdy » Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #325 on: February 24, 2013, 03:19:02 AM »

But the argument is, the laws are unjust.
And I don't agree.  And I just had a drink the other day with a complete stranger at Hoolihan's, and my toast was: "Let's drink to our dear Americans in this beautiful prosperous country who think they got a rough deal and think their laws are awful and government bad, because they have no idea how good they have it as compared to where you and I are from."

But I'm not here to argue or protest against anyone's right to speak their mind.  Freedom of speech is another beautiful attribute about this God-blessed country.  Smiley

Church?  American churches are open, and beautiful, and well taken care of - and empty. There are places where you can't go to church freely, or practice your religion freely, or be a free person at all.

Sort of puts getting wasted on pot in perspective.
Whatever it is you mean.

In reference to the bolded portion in your post.  People ignore these truths and argue to be able to consume drugs to get high.  Doesn’t seem right to me.  Priorities appear to be out of order.
Logged
Nadege
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


« Reply #326 on: February 24, 2013, 03:38:58 AM »

In reference to the bolded portion in your post.  People ignore these truths and argue to be able to consume drugs to get high.  Doesn’t seem right to me.  Priorities appear to be out of order.
You may find this film interesting: http://vimeo.com/46476690

It's a few years old and is called 'Well-Founded Fear."  As an immigration paralegal, I naturally find it very interesting because it talks about the work of government asylum officers with whom we work closely.  I recommend it to our asylum applicants so that they get an idea of what an asylum interview is.  But anyone may find it interesting.  It is about why and how people from other countries seek a safe haven in the United States.

I actually rented the movie from Netflix - then discovered it is available on Vimeo.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,150


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #327 on: February 24, 2013, 03:40:31 AM »

No, it is not that easy.

Yes, it certainly is that easy.  Your disagreement does not change this fact in any way.
How is it that easy to recognize that the consumption of marijuana is wrong? Because you say so?

you need to answer the challenges from sources outside yourself.

Not really.  Experience is life’s greatest teacher, especially when your occupation puts you smack dab in the middle of the topic being discussed.  But, again, I have.
You're extrapolating universal generalizations from your own experience. That's a logical fallacy.

I've only seen you give feeble attempts at both.
Then you didn’t read this thread much at all.
Actually, I have read this thread, yet I see nothing that changes my perception of your retorts.

Ok then.
So, what are you going to do to prove your point that the smoking of marijuana is a sin in and of itself? The key here is that you must prove that it's impossible to smoke an amount of marijuana so small that one does not get high from it. Merely citing your personal experience will not convince me, since I regard that as mere anecdotal evidence, evidence that has a much higher chance of being unreliable because it cannot be investigated scientifically. You need to cite source documents outside yourself, preferably peer reviewed documents from scientific/medical journals.

I don’t need to convince.  You already know I am right.  You are just playing devil’s advocate.
Please do not be so patronizing as to presume to know what I'm trying to do, for you do not know.

And even if you are not, which I strongly suspect you are, I still don’t have to do this unless my opinions are less than someone else’s.
You do have to offer proof because you have not done so yet, at least not enough to convince me.

The thing is, I have 2000 years of Christian history to support what I have said.
So prove it.

What does the opposite have?  A few decades of pot smokers.  I think I will stick with what the Church has always stood for and taught, thanks.  Unless, of course, you or someone else can prove 2000 years of Church teachings wrong...
Can you prove that what you represent is actually not just your own opinion?

Bolded portion:
Right after the same thing is provided for the opposite, which has already been asked for and never provided.  Your demand is a little late in the debate on this thread.

EDIT:
And since when do peer reviewed medical journals dictate sin?  Oh, that’s right…they don’t.
They can be used to prove that it's impossible to smoke an amount of marijuana so small that it doesn't make one high. I will grant that intoxication is a sin, whether one be drunk on beer or high on pot. But if you cannot prove that it's impossible to smoke an amount of pot so small that it doesn't intoxicate, then all you can do is argue that the smoking of marijuana is a sin in and of itself, even if it doesn't make one high. IMO, if the drinking of amounts of alcohol too small to intoxicate is not of itself sinful, then the smoking of amounts of marijuana too small to intoxicate is not of itself sinful--I think I also have the support of Scripture and traditional Church teaching to back me up on this.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2013, 03:44:59 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #328 on: February 24, 2013, 03:59:05 AM »

No, it is not that easy.

Yes, it certainly is that easy.  Your disagreement does not change this fact in any way.
How is it that easy to recognize that the consumption of marijuana is wrong? Because you say so?

you need to answer the challenges from sources outside yourself.

Not really.  Experience is life’s greatest teacher, especially when your occupation puts you smack dab in the middle of the topic being discussed.  But, again, I have.
You're extrapolating universal generalizations from your own experience. That's a logical fallacy.

I've only seen you give feeble attempts at both.
Then you didn’t read this thread much at all.
Actually, I have read this thread, yet I see nothing that changes my perception of your retorts.

Ok then.
So, what are you going to do to prove your point that the smoking of marijuana is a sin in and of itself? The key here is that you must prove that it's impossible to smoke an amount of marijuana so small that one does not get high from it. Merely citing your personal experience will not convince me, since I regard that as mere anecdotal evidence, evidence that has a much higher chance of being unreliable because it cannot be investigated scientifically. You need to cite source documents outside yourself, preferably peer reviewed documents from scientific/medical journals.

I don’t need to convince.  You already know I am right.  You are just playing devil’s advocate.
Please do not be so patronizing as to presume to know what I'm trying to do, for you do not know.

And even if you are not, which I strongly suspect you are, I still don’t have to do this unless my opinions are less than someone else’s.
You do have to offer proof because you have not done so yet, at least not enough to convince me.

The thing is, I have 2000 years of Christian history to support what I have said.
So prove it.

What does the opposite have?  A few decades of pot smokers.  I think I will stick with what the Church has always stood for and taught, thanks.  Unless, of course, you or someone else can prove 2000 years of Church teachings wrong...
Can you prove that what you represent is actually not just your own opinion?

Bolded portion:
Right after the same thing is provided for the opposite, which has already been asked for and never provided.  Your demand is a little late in the debate on this thread.

EDIT:
And since when do peer reviewed medical journals dictate sin?  Oh, that’s right…they don’t.
They can be used to prove that it's impossible to smoke an amount of marijuana so small that it doesn't make one high. I will grant that intoxication is a sin, whether one be drunk on beer or high on pot. But if you cannot prove that it's impossible to smoke an amount of pot so small that it doesn't intoxicate, then all you can do is argue that the smoking of marijuana is a sin in and of itself, even if it doesn't make one high. IMO, if the drinking of amounts of alcohol too small to intoxicate is not of itself sinful, then the smoking of amounts of marijuana too small to intoxicate is not of itself sinful--I think I also have the support of Scripture and traditional Church teaching to back me up on this.

Semantics and word games.  No thanks.  It isn’t my kind of game.  Chutes and Ladders, now that may be a game I would enjoy playing with you.  Again, I don’t care if you are convinced or if you are not.  The fact other people agree with me shows it isn’t just my opinion.  If what I have provided is not sufficient for you, so be it.  I can live with that, no problem.  I don’t have to answer for you or anyone else.  Each must make their own choices and if they choose to ignore right from wrong, they also choose to accept the consequences of that decision.  You stated, “I will grant that intoxication (Drunkenness, Inebriation, Intemperance) is a sin.”  I agree, as does the Church.  End of story. 
Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,424



WWW
« Reply #329 on: February 24, 2013, 04:11:10 AM »

Quote from: FormerReformer

Not by any right governance of the American people as set forth in the Constitution. The Federal government has been operating illegally for quite some time.

 Shocked

Wow.
That caught my eye too. Suffice it to say. Long live Calhoun! Wink
Although I think recreational drugs should be legal. I mean most people under a certain age do them anyways.

I don't know I'd go as far as secession. But, with only a quick touch on Politics, we have every armed conflict since the end of WWII, the Patriot Act, and the new-boss-same-as-the-old-boss's supposed right to order hits on American citizens without due process, so long as it serves the War on Terror to provide a few examples of what I mean.

 
For knowingly posting politics on the Public Forum, where discussion of politics is forbidden, you are receiving this warning to last for the next 7 days. If you wish to appeal this warning, please send me a private message.

- PeterTheAleut
Logged

"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!
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,150


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #330 on: February 24, 2013, 04:50:12 AM »

No, it is not that easy.

Yes, it certainly is that easy.  Your disagreement does not change this fact in any way.
How is it that easy to recognize that the consumption of marijuana is wrong? Because you say so?

you need to answer the challenges from sources outside yourself.

Not really.  Experience is life’s greatest teacher, especially when your occupation puts you smack dab in the middle of the topic being discussed.  But, again, I have.
You're extrapolating universal generalizations from your own experience. That's a logical fallacy.

I've only seen you give feeble attempts at both.
Then you didn’t read this thread much at all.
Actually, I have read this thread, yet I see nothing that changes my perception of your retorts.

Ok then.
So, what are you going to do to prove your point that the smoking of marijuana is a sin in and of itself? The key here is that you must prove that it's impossible to smoke an amount of marijuana so small that one does not get high from it. Merely citing your personal experience will not convince me, since I regard that as mere anecdotal evidence, evidence that has a much higher chance of being unreliable because it cannot be investigated scientifically. You need to cite source documents outside yourself, preferably peer reviewed documents from scientific/medical journals.

I don’t need to convince.  You already know I am right.  You are just playing devil’s advocate.
Please do not be so patronizing as to presume to know what I'm trying to do, for you do not know.

And even if you are not, which I strongly suspect you are, I still don’t have to do this unless my opinions are less than someone else’s.
You do have to offer proof because you have not done so yet, at least not enough to convince me.

The thing is, I have 2000 years of Christian history to support what I have said.
So prove it.

What does the opposite have?  A few decades of pot smokers.  I think I will stick with what the Church has always stood for and taught, thanks.  Unless, of course, you or someone else can prove 2000 years of Church teachings wrong...
Can you prove that what you represent is actually not just your own opinion?

Bolded portion:
Right after the same thing is provided for the opposite, which has already been asked for and never provided.  Your demand is a little late in the debate on this thread.

EDIT:
And since when do peer reviewed medical journals dictate sin?  Oh, that’s right…they don’t.
They can be used to prove that it's impossible to smoke an amount of marijuana so small that it doesn't make one high. I will grant that intoxication is a sin, whether one be drunk on beer or high on pot. But if you cannot prove that it's impossible to smoke an amount of pot so small that it doesn't intoxicate, then all you can do is argue that the smoking of marijuana is a sin in and of itself, even if it doesn't make one high. IMO, if the drinking of amounts of alcohol too small to intoxicate is not of itself sinful, then the smoking of amounts of marijuana too small to intoxicate is not of itself sinful--I think I also have the support of Scripture and traditional Church teaching to back me up on this.

Semantics and word games.  No thanks.  It isn’t my kind of game.  Chutes and Ladders, now that may be a game I would enjoy playing with you.  Again, I don’t care if you are convinced or if you are not.  The fact other people agree with me shows it isn’t just my opinion.  If what I have provided is not sufficient for you, so be it.  I can live with that, no problem.  I don’t have to answer for you or anyone else.  Each must make their own choices and if they choose to ignore right from wrong, they also choose to accept the consequences of that decision.  You stated, “I will grant that intoxication (Drunkenness, Inebriation, Intemperance) is a sin.”  I agree, as does the Church.
But the question of this thread is whether smoking marijuana is a sin. So far you have failed to prove that it is. (FWIW, I really don't care one way or the other whether smoking marijuana is a sin. I don't smoke marijuana. I wouldn't smoke marijuana even if it was legal to do so, for I simply have no use for the stuff. I just have a meter that's very sensitive to dogmatic BS, a meter known by many on this forum, and you just tripped it.)

BTW, when you insert a parenthetical into a quote of words I said, you attribute to me things I never said. That is very rude and dishonest. If you're going to quote me, then quote me verbatim. Don't change my words again.

End of story.  
Nice dodge.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2013, 05:06:16 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
katherine 2001
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 888


Eastern Orthodox Church--Established in 33 A.D.


« Reply #331 on: February 24, 2013, 05:47:31 AM »

I have a solution if you don't know whether using marijuana is a sin.  Ask your priest (or even your bishop when he visits your parish).  Does the Church have guidelines on how to handle that if it is confessed or the priest has knowledge that a person does that?  Isn't the Church more qualified to answer that question, since it is much more qualified to answer a question about whether something is considered sinful than the scientific studies?
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #332 on: February 24, 2013, 06:38:09 AM »

But the question of this thread is whether smoking marijuana is a sin.
 

I said it is and provided multiple reasons why I believe it is a sin.  Either you accept them or you don’t.  You not accepting them is of no consequence in the end.  Agree, disagree, be apathetic, it makes no difference.  Truth is truth regardless of how much we want to debate.  Word games, with which I do not engage, is for trivial debate, and useless.

BTW, when you insert a parenthetical into a quote of words I said, you attribute to me things I never said. That is very rude and dishonest. If you're going to quote me, then quote me verbatim.
Other words with the same meaning used in the same context considering its usage in this discussion.  It’s called a synonym (substitute, alternative word, replacement).  I used a dictionary to ensure I did not make a mistake.  If you must be upset with someone, be upset with Webster’s.  That is the reason they were put in parentheses.  So anyone reading would know I put them in there and they were not from you originally.  Only used to complete the thought on my end.  If you prefer a different way, and it is correct in a grammatical way, I will be more than happy to implement that style.  The way I performed the task has been used for a very long time and is accepted throughout the English speaking world.

Nice dodge.
No dodge.  Truth.  You, I and the Church are all in agreement.  There is nothing else to discuss.  Any further debate is fruitless, empty and would be for personal satisfaction.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #333 on: February 24, 2013, 06:55:48 AM »

I have a solution if you don't know whether using marijuana is a sin.  Ask your priest (or even your bishop when he visits your parish).  Does the Church have guidelines on how to handle that if it is confessed or the priest has knowledge that a person does that?  Isn't the Church more qualified to answer that question, since it is much more qualified to answer a question about whether something is considered sinful than the scientific studies?
Only if the Church teachings have been peer reviewed and subjected to scientific and medical scrutiny, apparently.  Afterall, if a priest shouldn’t teach about how the universe was created (he is not an evolutionary biologist) or how homosexuality is wrong (he is not a genetic biologist and doctor/psychologist), he has no leg to stand on when speaking about marijuana.  He is not a doctor, he is not a science professor, he did not work at Duke University poison control for the entire time he was in medical school (although the person who turned me onto the troubles of MJ did all those things).  He shouldn’t say anything and the Church should remain silent.  After all, the millennia’s of Christian and before that Jewish teachings did know what we know today about science.  I mean, murder only is murder if the child is “viable” in its own right (whatever that means)…right?

It is a very simply thought process.  Either accept the Church and what it teaches or deny the Church and what it teaches…on everything.  It is all or nothing.  What is the saying about being lukewarm?  If you accept the Church in its entirety, you deny the world and will be ridiculed.  If you deny the Church in its entirety and embrace the world, you will be judged accordingly. 

So, we must choose.  The mind of God or the mind of man.  There are no other options available.  We may play the game and attempt to add other options, but in the end, it is either God or man.  But what do I know?  What does a priest or a Bishop know compared to worldly knowledge?  Another saying comes to mind.  Something about knowledge increasing but not saving.  Maybe I am dreaming it up.  Who can say?  It seems an understanding accepted universally throughout the Church only applies to specific items and must be re-defended when a new specification arises, such as getting high on marijuana.  Since the ECF's didn't specifically say it (MJ) was wrong, it must be acceptable (or some other nonsense, I can’t keep up with it these days).
« Last Edit: February 24, 2013, 07:01:40 AM by Kerdy » Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #334 on: February 24, 2013, 09:04:08 AM »

Not only is marijuana illegal but its also an intoxicant and its written in the scriptures that drunkards will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.
That statement makes no sense. Wine is an intoxicant, yet we use it in the Eucharist.
It makes perfect sense.  You don't get drunk partaking of the Eucharist.  You get high partaking of MJ.
Really? It's not possible to smoke marijuana but not enough to get high?

It is possible. Especially when someone is not used to smoking. Not, that it has any sense then.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,190


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #335 on: February 24, 2013, 09:08:01 AM »

What's with Orthodox Christian forums and passionate debates on pot?
Why is that a bad thing?
Aren't we supposed to be discussing how to be better people, not how to engage in criminal activities?

It's not criminal where I live. The world is bigger than the US.
Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #336 on: February 24, 2013, 09:21:14 AM »

What's with Orthodox Christian forums and passionate debates on pot?
Why is that a bad thing?
Aren't we supposed to be discussing how to be better people, not how to engage in criminal activities?

It's not criminal where I live.
This does not make it ok.  In Iran, aren't honor killings legal?
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,190


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #337 on: February 24, 2013, 09:31:29 AM »

What's with Orthodox Christian forums and passionate debates on pot?  I saw the same thing on the Ancient Faith forum.

Good question.  There should be passionate unity on the issue, but modern times has altered human perception of right and wrong.  It's a sad thing to see, but it has happened.

Which Synod, Father or Apostle condemned marijuana?
« Last Edit: February 24, 2013, 09:31:42 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
Deep Roots
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Catholic
Posts: 370


« Reply #338 on: February 24, 2013, 09:44:54 AM »

some of you sure are a pitiful bunch. but seriously, that picture of my favorite custom made artisan glass pipe is forthcoming for all of those who requested it.
Logged

Peace.
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,313


« Reply #339 on: February 24, 2013, 10:04:18 AM »

Celebrating criminal activity seems like it might be against the forum rules. IDK.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #340 on: February 24, 2013, 10:34:40 AM »

some of you sure are a pitiful bunch. but seriously, that picture of my favorite custom made artisan glass pipe is forthcoming for all of those who requested it.

"Let me show it to you! Let me show it to you! Boy oh boy!"   Roll Eyes

« Last Edit: February 24, 2013, 10:36:30 AM by Romaios » Logged
Deep Roots
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Catholic
Posts: 370


« Reply #341 on: February 24, 2013, 10:35:34 AM »

Look, here's the deal folks.  

I wasnt all that popular when I was in school either.  I got along okay with people, but I wasn't exactly homecoming king or the star QB.  But I grew up.  I wasnt the principal's hall monitor in school and I'm not today.

Stop acting like the hall monitor.  Look, I get that we're all trying to do the best we can to love God rightly and love our neighbors. We're trying to be good Orthodox.

But the zeal with which some of you wield the canons, the teachings, secular law, etc., as weapons against people...well, lets just say it feels an awful lot like people who just love wearing a theological hall monitor badge on your shirt.  We get it, youre awesome.  We get it, youre "a greater sinner" than those of us who have, or do, smoke a little weed now and again -- even though the claim is hollow.  We get it, youre a monk in your own mind and you secretly hate that you actually live in the world and not in a monastery, so you'll treat this message board like it's a cyber monastery.  

I have had this weed conversation more times than I can count and it's always the same, which is why I've essentially just punked this thread.  The bottom line is that if I had the patience for it, the hypocrisy of the "it's against the law" argument would become evident.  It isn't consistent.  We advocate support for the law except when we disagree on theological grounds.  And those "theological grounds" are open to interpretation.

I've heard Christians tell me that MLK Jr. was actually WRONG for disobeying the law in his civil disobedience movements.  Some of you might actually agree with that.  Those same christians are probably stocking up on guns right now in fear that Obama is coming for the guns.  And I'm sure they won't give the guns up if made to.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2013, 10:36:31 AM by Deep Roots » Logged

Peace.
Deep Roots
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Catholic
Posts: 370


« Reply #342 on: February 24, 2013, 10:36:01 AM »

some of you sure are a pitiful bunch. but seriously, that picture of my favorite custom made artisan glass pipe is forthcoming for all of those who requested it.

"Let me show it to you! Let me show it to you! Boy oh boy!"


how did you get my pic?!?
Logged

Peace.
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #343 on: February 24, 2013, 10:38:49 AM »

how did you get my pic?!?

Wikileaks.  Wink  Cheesy
Logged
Deep Roots
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Catholic
Posts: 370


« Reply #344 on: February 24, 2013, 10:39:57 AM »

how did you get my pic?!?

Wikileaks.  Wink  Cheesy
that's an organization I'm just SURE the folks around here love!
Logged

Peace.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,150


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #345 on: February 24, 2013, 12:08:50 PM »

But the question of this thread is whether smoking marijuana is a sin.
 

I said it is and provided multiple reasons why I believe it is a sin.  Either you accept them or you don’t.  You not accepting them is of no consequence in the end.  Agree, disagree, be apathetic, it makes no difference.  Truth is truth regardless of how much we want to debate.  Word games, with which I do not engage, is for trivial debate, and useless.

BTW, when you insert a parenthetical into a quote of words I said, you attribute to me things I never said. That is very rude and dishonest. If you're going to quote me, then quote me verbatim.
Other words with the same meaning used in the same context considering its usage in this discussion.  It’s called a synonym (substitute, alternative word, replacement).  I used a dictionary to ensure I did not make a mistake.  If you must be upset with someone, be upset with Webster’s.
But Webster's Dictionary did not insert words into my quote. You did.  My complaint is therefore with you.

That is the reason they were put in parentheses.  So anyone reading would know I put them in there and they were not from you originally.
Doesn't matter. They're still wrapped up inside the same quotation marks, thereby implying that I said them.

Only used to complete the thought on my end.  If you prefer a different way, and it is correct in a grammatical way, I will be more than happy to implement that style.
Please do.

The way I performed the task has been used for a very long time and is accepted throughout the English speaking world.
If so, I've never seen it before.

Nice dodge.
No dodge.  Truth.  You, I and the Church are all in agreement.  There is nothing else to discuss.  Any further debate is fruitless, empty and would be for personal satisfaction.
No, Kerdy, you're dodging.
Logged
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,313


« Reply #346 on: February 24, 2013, 03:07:17 PM »

Look, here's the deal folks.  

I wasnt all that popular when I was in school either.  I got along okay with people, but I wasn't exactly homecoming king or the star QB.  But I grew up.  I wasnt the principal's hall monitor in school and I'm not today.

Stop acting like the hall monitor.  Look, I get that we're all trying to do the best we can to love God rightly and love our neighbors. We're trying to be good Orthodox.

But the zeal with which some of you wield the canons, the teachings, secular law, etc., as weapons against people...well, lets just say it feels an awful lot like people who just love wearing a theological hall monitor badge on your shirt.  We get it, youre awesome.  We get it, youre "a greater sinner" than those of us who have, or do, smoke a little weed now and again -- even though the claim is hollow.  We get it, youre a monk in your own mind and you secretly hate that you actually live in the world and not in a monastery, so you'll treat this message board like it's a cyber monastery.  

I have had this weed conversation more times than I can count and it's always the same, which is why I've essentially just punked this thread.  The bottom line is that if I had the patience for it, the hypocrisy of the "it's against the law" argument would become evident.  It isn't consistent.  We advocate support for the law except when we disagree on theological grounds.  And those "theological grounds" are open to interpretation.

I've heard Christians tell me that MLK Jr. was actually WRONG for disobeying the law in his civil disobedience movements.  Some of you might actually agree with that.  Those same christians are probably stocking up on guns right now in fear that Obama is coming for the guns.  And I'm sure they won't give the guns up if made to.


God, I thank You, that I am not as other men are.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Deep Roots
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Catholic
Posts: 370


« Reply #347 on: February 24, 2013, 03:23:24 PM »

Look, here's the deal folks.  

I wasnt all that popular when I was in school either.  I got along okay with people, but I wasn't exactly homecoming king or the star QB.  But I grew up.  I wasnt the principal's hall monitor in school and I'm not today.

Stop acting like the hall monitor.  Look, I get that we're all trying to do the best we can to love God rightly and love our neighbors. We're trying to be good Orthodox.

But the zeal with which some of you wield the canons, the teachings, secular law, etc., as weapons against people...well, lets just say it feels an awful lot like people who just love wearing a theological hall monitor badge on your shirt.  We get it, youre awesome.  We get it, youre "a greater sinner" than those of us who have, or do, smoke a little weed now and again -- even though the claim is hollow.  We get it, youre a monk in your own mind and you secretly hate that you actually live in the world and not in a monastery, so you'll treat this message board like it's a cyber monastery.  

I have had this weed conversation more times than I can count and it's always the same, which is why I've essentially just punked this thread.  The bottom line is that if I had the patience for it, the hypocrisy of the "it's against the law" argument would become evident.  It isn't consistent.  We advocate support for the law except when we disagree on theological grounds.  And those "theological grounds" are open to interpretation.

I've heard Christians tell me that MLK Jr. was actually WRONG for disobeying the law in his civil disobedience movements.  Some of you might actually agree with that.  Those same christians are probably stocking up on guns right now in fear that Obama is coming for the guns.  And I'm sure they won't give the guns up if made to.


God, I thank You, that I am not as other men are.
it's a real indictment of many on this forum that I can't tell what in the world you are saying with your pseudomystical ambiguous response.  I can't tell if you're attempting to criticize my post by insinuating that I am like the man who said that (likely), or if you're indicting yourself (not likely), or something else.

Either way, it's yet another response that seems to mean something on the surface when in reality it's possibly just another nonsensical spiritual sounding phrase.  Like when Maria uses the phrase "I am the greatest of sinners" as a way of backhandedly asserting a spiritual greatness over others.  Spiritual limbo -- how low can you get...in order to win the game.

If I am reading you wrong, I apologize.  We shall see.
Logged

Peace.
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,313


« Reply #348 on: February 24, 2013, 03:42:55 PM »

Look, here's the deal folks.  

I wasnt all that popular when I was in school either.  I got along okay with people, but I wasn't exactly homecoming king or the star QB.  But I grew up.  I wasnt the principal's hall monitor in school and I'm not today.

Stop acting like the hall monitor.  Look, I get that we're all trying to do the best we can to love God rightly and love our neighbors. We're trying to be good Orthodox.

But the zeal with which some of you wield the canons, the teachings, secular law, etc., as weapons against people...well, lets just say it feels an awful lot like people who just love wearing a theological hall monitor badge on your shirt.  We get it, youre awesome.  We get it, youre "a greater sinner" than those of us who have, or do, smoke a little weed now and again -- even though the claim is hollow.  We get it, youre a monk in your own mind and you secretly hate that you actually live in the world and not in a monastery, so you'll treat this message board like it's a cyber monastery.  

I have had this weed conversation more times than I can count and it's always the same, which is why I've essentially just punked this thread.  The bottom line is that if I had the patience for it, the hypocrisy of the "it's against the law" argument would become evident.  It isn't consistent.  We advocate support for the law except when we disagree on theological grounds.  And those "theological grounds" are open to interpretation.

I've heard Christians tell me that MLK Jr. was actually WRONG for disobeying the law in his civil disobedience movements.  Some of you might actually agree with that.  Those same christians are probably stocking up on guns right now in fear that Obama is coming for the guns.  And I'm sure they won't give the guns up if made to.


God, I thank You, that I am not as other men are.
it's a real indictment of many on this forum that I can't tell what in the world you are saying with your pseudomystical ambiguous response.  I can't tell if you're attempting to criticize my post by insinuating that I am like the man who said that (likely), or if you're indicting yourself (not likely), or something else.

Either way, it's yet another response that seems to mean something on the surface when in reality it's possibly just another nonsensical spiritual sounding phrase.  Like when Maria uses the phrase "I am the greatest of sinners" as a way of backhandedly asserting a spiritual greatness over others.  Spiritual limbo -- how low can you get...in order to win the game.

If I am reading you wrong, I apologize.  We shall see.

It's pretty straightforward actually. Your posts are probably some of the most self-righteous I've ever seen on these forums.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,313


« Reply #349 on: February 24, 2013, 03:51:57 PM »

It is the Blood of Christ, yes, but it also remains wine all the same.

So the hypostatic union is not between God and man but between God, man and fermented grapes?
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Deep Roots
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Catholic
Posts: 370


« Reply #350 on: February 24, 2013, 03:57:40 PM »

Look, here's the deal folks.  

I wasnt all that popular when I was in school either.  I got along okay with people, but I wasn't exactly homecoming king or the star QB.  But I grew up.  I wasnt the principal's hall monitor in school and I'm not today.

Stop acting like the hall monitor.  Look, I get that we're all trying to do the best we can to love God rightly and love our neighbors. We're trying to be good Orthodox.

But the zeal with which some of you wield the canons, the teachings, secular law, etc., as weapons against people...well, lets just say it feels an awful lot like people who just love wearing a theological hall monitor badge on your shirt.  We get it, youre awesome.  We get it, youre "a greater sinner" than those of us who have, or do, smoke a little weed now and again -- even though the claim is hollow.  We get it, youre a monk in your own mind and you secretly hate that you actually live in the world and not in a monastery, so you'll treat this message board like it's a cyber monastery.  

I have had this weed conversation more times than I can count and it's always the same, which is why I've essentially just punked this thread.  The bottom line is that if I had the patience for it, the hypocrisy of the "it's against the law" argument would become evident.  It isn't consistent.  We advocate support for the law except when we disagree on theological grounds.  And those "theological grounds" are open to interpretation.

I've heard Christians tell me that MLK Jr. was actually WRONG for disobeying the law in his civil disobedience movements.  Some of you might actually agree with that.  Those same christians are probably stocking up on guns right now in fear that Obama is coming for the guns.  And I'm sure they won't give the guns up if made to.


God, I thank You, that I am not as other men are.
it's a real indictment of many on this forum that I can't tell what in the world you are saying with your pseudomystical ambiguous response.  I can't tell if you're attempting to criticize my post by insinuating that I am like the man who said that (likely), or if you're indicting yourself (not likely), or something else.

Either way, it's yet another response that seems to mean something on the surface when in reality it's possibly just another nonsensical spiritual sounding phrase.  Like when Maria uses the phrase "I am the greatest of sinners" as a way of backhandedly asserting a spiritual greatness over others.  Spiritual limbo -- how low can you get...in order to win the game.

If I am reading you wrong, I apologize.  We shall see.

It's pretty straightforward actually. Your posts are probably some of the most self-righteous I've ever seen on these forums.
are they?  or are you just playing the whole "I know you are, but what am I" game?  I think it's the latter.

My posts are aimed at those who judge harshly, beat others over the head with pious words and the canons, and can barely disguise their contempt for democracy and modern times.  

(Just to save you the time, here's your follow up post:  "Ohhh, so you're judging people who judge?!?! Oh, isn't that rich!  What hypocrisy!")

Did I get that close to right?

If that was going to be your response, I say "grow up."  That's amateur.

If you want me to play the game I will.  I've been open about my beliefs and thoughts and opinions.  I AM sinful, like all of us.  I DO hold views that many believe to be controversial.  I AM politically very liberal.  I HAVE addictions and egotism.

Yup.

But I am not going to play those things like instruments in a discussion.  I think it's interesting that you accuse me of being oh-so-judgmental in on the boards, when you're the one who wants to appeal to the rules of the message board about my joking to post my pipe.

I think it's interesting that in a thread where several people have used phrases like "it makes me sad to see this," "The Church is on my side on this," and "It's a sin, that's all there is to it," that I am construed to be the most judgmental.


Let's not be dumb here.  Just as it is okay to be intolerant of racism (a popular, and idiotic, critique being that it's intolerant to be intolerance of racism)...it is okay to judge judgmentalism.  

I AM a sinner, trust me.  I'm all too aware.  And judgmentalism may be one of those sins, but what you're calling me out on is not that.
Logged

Peace.
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,313


« Reply #351 on: February 24, 2013, 04:08:04 PM »

I think it's interesting that in a thread where several people have used phrases like "it makes me sad to see this," "The Church is on my side on this," and "It's a sin, that's all there is to it," that I am construed to be the most judgmental.

But no real judgement of people rather than actions (as far as I know) until a post about how "some of you sure are a pitiful bunch."
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Nadege
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


« Reply #352 on: February 24, 2013, 04:16:33 PM »

But no real judgement of people rather than actions (as far as I know) until a post about how "some of you sure are a pitiful bunch."
Yeah, I saw that too.  Law-abiding citizens = pitiful bunch.  Offenders = national heroes.  And if you agree with the new proposed gun laws - you're plain mentally impaired.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2013, 04:23:01 PM by Nadege » Logged
Deep Roots
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Catholic
Posts: 370


« Reply #353 on: February 24, 2013, 04:24:56 PM »

I think it's interesting that in a thread where several people have used phrases like "it makes me sad to see this," "The Church is on my side on this," and "It's a sin, that's all there is to it," that I am construed to be the most judgmental.

But no real judgement of people rather than actions (as far as I know) until a post about how "some of you sure are a pitiful bunch."
sometimes that is a distinction without purpose.

Okay, I'll allow that quote you pulled from my post was harsh.  But it fit with my analogy that many here seem to think that they're hall monitors for the Church.  But the distinction between judging people rather than actions is blurred here quite often.  And anyone with half of a brain knows that usually when someone says "smoking is a sin and the Church is on my side and it's sad to see so many Orthodox Christians blah blah blah" that that is only a rhetorical way of judging the person.  You may disagree.  I'll disagree with your disagreement.

But no real judgement of people rather than actions (as far as I know) until a post about how "some of you sure are a pitiful bunch."
Yeah, I saw that too.  Law-abiding citizens = pitiful bunch.  Offenders = national heroes.  And if you agree with the new proposed gun laws - you're plain mentally impaired.

Yeah..because that's exactly what I was saying.  Your little equations make it easy to SEEM like you're saying something, but you're not.  I am not calling law-abiding citizens a pitiful bunch.  I'm calling those who would (literally or figuratively) see a pretty decent person smoking, and run to the next police officer, priest, principal, or whatever, to tell on them, a pitiful bunch.  Which they are.  Like I said, "Hall Monitors."   Also, I know some pretty scummy potheads.  I wouldn't dare call them national heroes.  But I also know some pretty great people who smoke weed every once in a while.

« Last Edit: February 24, 2013, 04:28:12 PM by Deep Roots » Logged

Peace.
Nadege
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


« Reply #354 on: February 24, 2013, 04:28:18 PM »

Yeah..because that's exactly what I was saying.  Next...


Next - go and vote for who and what you want.  I'll do the same.  And stop spitting insults around on the internet, it doesn't speak in your favor but only makes one sorry that you're not over your lonely bullied past.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #355 on: February 24, 2013, 04:31:52 PM »

Spare us your personal squabbles. All of you.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Deep Roots
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Catholic
Posts: 370


« Reply #356 on: February 24, 2013, 04:49:34 PM »

hehehe
Logged

Peace.
Deep Roots
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Catholic
Posts: 370


« Reply #357 on: February 24, 2013, 04:49:55 PM »

yes sir
Logged

Peace.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,150


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #358 on: February 24, 2013, 05:00:33 PM »

It is the Blood of Christ, yes, but it also remains wine all the same.

So the hypostatic union is not between God and man but between God, man and fermented grapes?
Huh What is that supposed to mean? Huh
Logged
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,313


« Reply #359 on: February 24, 2013, 05:03:47 PM »

It is the Blood of Christ, yes, but it also remains wine all the same.

So the hypostatic union is not between God and man but between God, man and fermented grapes?
Huh What is that supposed to mean? Huh

How can something be both the blood of Christ and wine unless it is hypostatically united?
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Tags: sin Orthodox Christian Fellowship marijuana alcohol drugs bee in bonnet pot weed 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.2 seconds with 72 queries.