“Significantly divergent”? I must have missed that lesson in Rasta Heretical Cult 101. Of course I missed the death threat training in Rasta Heretical Cult 102, and the racist rants in 103. It seems I have along way to go before I meet the “abomination” standard which being a Rastafarian calls for!
You worship a dead human emperor as God. The significant divergence is plain and obvious to any Orthodox Christian. You are on an Orthodox Christian website, and we are presenting to you the Orthodox Christian truth. We are not imposing our beliefs on you, nor are we attacking you personally; you came to us, and we are giving you the Orthodox position on your faith. Why can't you just accept and respect that?
Surely, it was apparent to the author that the “cult” made a pretty decent attempt at so-called Orthodoxy. Of course, all here would disagree; maybe Mr. Redington should be excommunicated??
I’m not sure why Mr. Redington, whoever he is (for I certainly have not heard of him), would be ex-communicated. He is presenting a personal point of view on a matter that is not pertinent to the issue at hand (i.e. the fact emperor-worship is blasphemous in the Orthodox experience). He is simply saying that the Rasta culture has some good elements. I don’t doubt that. Islam has good elements to it too. As does Buddhism, Hinduism, and a range of other cults and sects. That does not mean all these cults are compatible with Orthodox Christianity, or that those elements which separate them from us are trivial enough to ignore.
I did not say that the Ethiopian Orthodox hierarchs did not oppose Rastafarianism. What I said was that they failed to CONSISTENTLY oppose it. In other words, although many Church officials, indeed maybe even the majority, do in fact, oppose the heresy, some do not.
Well I would like to see proof of it. I don’t want hearsay. I’m sure if I were to purport slanderous claims against Rastafari leaders that you would want something more concrete than hearsay or anecdotal testimony that cannot be objectively verified. Instead of getting offended, remember that you are on an Orthodox Christian forum; have a little empathy, and remember: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
In fact, one Church I contacted was unaware of the differences that result between the two groups (in defence of that particular church, it is unlikely to encounter Rastas).
So what? I’m sure I could contact a number of Orthodox parishes and find that they know very little about Rastafarianism, or Islam, or Buddhism, or Scientology etc. why would an Orthodox parish be necessarily informed as to the nature and beliefs of the millions of religious beliefs that exist in this world?
Although the priests may demand and receive verbal denial of HIM divinity before baptism, those same priests are allowing the baptized to revert back to their “heretical” ways, and still attend services.
Again, you’re appealing to either hearsay or anecdotal testimony that cannot be objectively verified, and as such, it is meaningless. Even that which you’re appealing to sounds rather absurd; why would clergy expect Rastafarians to officially renounce their faith at baptism if they’re just going to let them revert back to those beliefs later without taking disciplinary action? The story you tell doesn’t even sound reasonable in itself; it implicitly imputes dishonesty the holy Orthodox clergy. I find it offensive, especially so in light of the absolute lack of reliable evidence. Again, I repeat: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".
I have given evidence three times to you (twice on this forum, and once privately) exactly detailing how much support both the Emperor and the Imperial Family have granted the Rasta community.
No, you have given me no such evidence of the sort you claim. In what capacity did the Emperor support the Rastas? As a religious movement? Or as an impoverished people who were in dire need of help, spiritual and otherwise? He sent Aboune Yeshaq to correct your misinterpretation of Ethiopian culture. I went through this in my previous response to you which you have yet to respond to.
When asked to tell the Rastas he wasn’t divine, he said “Who am I to deny their faith?”
Show me exactly where he made
that statement in response to
that inquiry. I would like to see reliable sources evidencing that statement
and the context in which it was allegedly made. I have already discussed at length the explicit denial of HIM to the Rastafarian conception of him. You have yet to respond to that; you copped-out by questioning the translation without any substantial basis for doing so.
Forgive me, I doubt even a humble Orthodox Christian would be so tolerant.
Does your concept of tolerance entail compromise of the truth? I’m sorry but the Orthodox Christian concept of tolerance certainly does not.
I have heard claims from albeit a biased Amharic speaker that the phraseology of the English answer did not match the Amharic original.
Then propose the alternative translation and provide the reasons behind it and we will investigate the reliability of that claim. Or do you just want to put your faith in the claim’s of another, whom you have admitted to be a prejudiced source, simply because such claims are in harmony with your presuppositions?
Christ is a man (with a divine nature), was mortal (if He did not die on the Cross, a whole lot of doctrine flies out the window), and did in fact *emanate* from a deityTherefore, was the Emperor telling us not to believe in Christ? Of course not.
I already dealt with this in the response I made a while ago which you have yet to respond to. The Emperor was telling you that he is mortal
in opposition to the Rastafarian conception of him. He was therefore asserting his
mere mortality. To say that he was simply affirming one aspect of his nature in conformity with the Rastafarian conception of him, is to completely ignore the context of his statement which was purposed to explicate his nature in opposition to the Rastafarian conception of him as God. Let me put it for you another way: Christ is, as you admit, immortal and mortal (God and man), thus, if the Emperor thought himself to be Christ, then in response to an inquiry as to his thoughts on those that consider him to be God, he would not have asserted his mortality as if in contradiction to the idea he is God; he would have said something like, “well, they’re right, I am God, and as they believe, I am man also”. Yet he didn't and history proves that he was not immortal, else he would have risen bodily from the grave like the true Christ did 2000 years ago. The fact of the matter is however, his body was not raised; it is lying in the earth as dust.
Anyway, as I already told you, once Christ rose from the dead, His humanity was a glorified humanity; it was immortal. That is how our salvation was effected! Christ defeated death by trampling upon death and destroying it. This is the dogmatic Tradition of the Orthodox Church. Christ could only die ONCE. He could not re-incarnate and die again; what utter absurdity.
Your Rastafarianism defies fundamental Christological and Soteriological presuppositions which are basic to most forms of Christianity, especially that particular form of Christianity HIM was an obedient member of.
You accuse me of doubting a translation because it is not in accordance with what I believe, yet you also interpret the translation only the way you want to see it.
I have interpreted the translation the way any normal, reasonable, honest, objective human being would interpret it; the way it would be interpreted by one concerned with finding the truth, as opposed to being concerned with blindly attempting to validate their beliefs at the cost of the truth.
Official documentation?? Do you think the Church is releasing its archives white kid “heretic” from Canada??
So what you’re essentially saying is: “because I don’t have access to any official documentation, you should just listen to what I have to say in spite of the fact my opinion is not based on anything reliable or official.”
Listen, you're claiming that the Coptic Orthodox Church ex-communicated Abune Yeshaq. Whenever the Coptic Orthodox Church ex-communicates a prominent figure, it is usually announced in the popular magazine titled El-Karaza, so that members of the Church are aware that they need to beware of such figures. When you find me where in El-Karaza it has announced the ex-communication of Abune Yeshaq then come to talk to me. Your search will be difficult considering you have practically no information to go on except a citation from an Orthodox priest given in an article written by God-knows-who and uploaded on various Rastafarian websites.
The same interview in which he describes baptizing Berhane Selassie, the Archbishop clearly states that he was *sent* by HIM specifically to form the EOTC in Jamaica.
So? That Abune Yeshaq makes a statement attributing his being sent to HIM could simply be intended to convey the fact that such a mission took place according to HIM’s will and desire; who said anything about whose authority was ultimately responsible for such action? In light of any evidence to the contrary, it is only reasonable to presume in light of normative Orthodox praxis that HIM “sent” Abune Yeshaq
indirectly, in consultation with and with approval of the Holy Synod.
Rev. Antonious Connor is an Orthodox priest, from what I can find at least. I have asked a Coptic friend to confirm or deny this “excommunication” from their side, the EOTC I am in contact with certainly does not act as if HH was excommunicated.
You’re using a quotation from one priest, cited in a dubious source that is not found anywhere but Rastafatrian websites. Hardly a reliable source of information. That is the problem with your position on just about everything, the basis for it is hearsay, conjecture, and dubious sources.
If the EOTC says that Abune Yeshaq wasn’t ex-communicated, then assuming that Fr. Antonious truly said what he is attributed to him, we would have to conclude that Fr. Antonious is misinformed. The only authority capable of ex-communicating an Ethiopian Orthodox Bishop, is the Ethiopian Orthodox Synod. Not a Coptic priest, not a Coptic Bishop, not even an Ethiopian Orthodox priest or Bishop, but a group of Ethiopian Orthodox Bishops who form the Holy Synod of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.
Once again, I find it odd that the very Church official selected to remedy the Rasta “heresy” did support such nefarious activities within his flock.
Yet you have cited no reliable evidence to suggest that Aboune Yeshaq supported the Rastafarians as a religious movement. Again, your position is based on hearsay, conjecture, and dubious sources.
Do you then wish to claim that the lack of such a document is merely proof that the Church considers it obvious that such beliefs are heretical in nature??
Any person with common sense can see the logic here. If the Ethiopian Orthodox Church adheres to Dogma X, then anything contrary to X is automatically heresy; it doesn't need to be specifically pronounced as such. That is how the Church operates. There is Truth and there is divergence from Truth. Truth = Orthodoxy, divergence = heresy. It’s A, B, C, logic. We have official documents that impose open blanket anathemas on ANYONE who contradicts these fundamental dogmas. Any belief system that diverges from the Truth incurs the Church’s anathema. The person or group need not be listed by name.
Did you read what I said??
Yes, I read hearsay, conjecture, and appeal to dubious sources. When you find reliable and real sources to base your position on, come back to me. How can you expect me to investigate your mere claim that a mass number of Rastafaris are being baptised into the Orthodox Church with clerical knowledge that they haven’t renounced their heresies? You might as well claim that President Bush worships an elephant, because that’s about as reliable as anything else you’ve claimed thus far.
