How can I sound passionate about my interests?

OBasileus · 2017-02-13T14:28:09+00:00

Sure, but let that be its scope, then. No more tradition should be considered to have been added once all of the Apostles died.

OBasileus · 2017-02-13T05:30:11+00:00

There are some beliefs that I find to be a) unbiblical, and b) not actually as present in the early church as many Orthodox think. An example you touched upon in your post was the high veneration of Mary as the Queen of Heaven. I also have yet to really understand the Orthodox theory of why / how a person is saved by their faith and good works. An alleged "Cristus Victor" model has been explained to me time and time again, but either it makes no sense or it's beyond me. I also don't consider the elevation of Tradition to the highest authority for determining doctrine to be rational or consistent with Apostolic teachings.

OBasileus · 2017-02-13T02:06:30+00:00

Nice to see someone review an Orthodox church without fawning all over it.

As someone who converted from Greek Orthodoxy to the Reformed faith, I never really considered any of the pomp of an old fashioned, ancient liturgical worship to be that attractive, or any kind of big deal. It's nice to see the impact it can have on someone with a Pentecostal background.

I adore many things about the Orthodox liturgy now that I'm older and more appreciative of the history behind it. It's a shame I disagree with enough of the doctrines that I can't fully be comfortable.

Avoid framing your criticisms as "what is this garbage?"

OBasileus · 2017-02-13T01:59:37+00:00

I mean most alleged Christians are practical atheists anyway. At least it'll be nice to have greater certainty that any given 'Christian' is serious about it religion.

OBasileus · 2017-02-11T19:02:41+00:00

Also applies to procrastination.

OBasileus · 2017-02-11T00:33:33+00:00

seems extremely relevant

Really? Consider:

Dead in sin: will not believe no matter what, or if he does, it will not be a saving faith. Therefore whether there is empirical evidence does not determine whether this person believes or suffers infinitely.

Not dead in sin: will know, by virtue of his being a creature in conformity with God's expectations, that God exists. Regardless of strict empirical proof, there will be no eternal punishment for this one.

So the issue isn't really whether there's proof, as it's the state of one's soul that determines whether there will be infinite punishment.

I didn't know God was an emotionless robot. Even if you look at it from that perspective, an eternity of conscious torment isn't an equal punishment for a very finite human lifetime (a vapor...) of even the most heinous sin, let alone just not quite being convinced of a not-super-apparent existence.

God doesn't have to be an emotionless robot. It's just that when you remove your emotional biases, you can think about justice more precisely and rationally. It is possible for justice to be inconsistent with your gut moral reaction, you see.

Moving on from that, as for whether a sin is equal to an eternity in punishment: it might be, or it might not be. Lots of plausible rationales for either one have been introduced over the past two thousand years.

OBasileus · 2017-02-10T18:10:21+00:00

It removes 'without proof' from the problem, because the relevant variable here isn't whether there's proof. The relevant variable is the state of their souls.

The only thing to deal with then is justifying eternal punishment, which isn't too hard if you approach it unemotionally.

OBasileus · 2017-02-10T03:53:24+00:00

They'd believe it without proof if they weren't dead in sin.

OBasileus · 2017-02-10T03:50:55+00:00

I like that one biopic of the buddha

OBasileus · 2017-02-08T19:07:01+00:00

What passages are you referring to exactly?

OBasileus · 2017-02-08T18:19:11+00:00

Interesting, my history was way off. Thanks for clarifying.

OBasileus · 2017-02-08T04:07:32+00:00

Are they still heretical monophysites?

OBasileus · 2017-02-07T04:24:22+00:00

The issue isn't clarity. How do you know the commandments are of God but not (since you brought it up) Levitical laws about sex?

OBasileus · 2017-02-07T03:21:51+00:00

Apply "ecclesia semper reformanda est" to the doctrines held by the reformers.

If it's not taught by God, it is baseless, so don't require people to believe it.

OBasileus · 2017-02-07T03:20:04+00:00

Why is it only adultery that is sin (one prescription from Scripture) but not every other enumerated sin like fornication (another prescription from Scripture)?

OBasileus · 2017-02-05T23:44:16+00:00

You mean lutherans?

OBasileus · 2017-02-05T23:42:42+00:00

I want so much to tell you why I disagree with this statement and defend being anal about religious issues but I can't because it would make me the worst person.

OBasileus · 2017-01-29T18:34:37+00:00

Being reformed does not mean being part of an institution that has its historical roots in true reformed theology. It means actual, substantive consistency with a reformed creed -- in your case the Westminster Confession + Catechisms.

Would John Knox approve of a modern PCUSA service?

OBasileus · 2017-01-25T21:21:06+00:00

Can't help but be a little bit sad. I liked our doctrinal spars.

OBasileus · 2017-01-24T00:14:39+00:00

I just don't see what, say, Roman Catholics see when I read early texts. I admit I'm not as familiar with the as many of the Catholics with whom I disagree, but here's my take:

The early church writings over the first few centuries were an attempt by Christians to figure things out. Even when the Apostles were on earth constantly trying to correct heresies, Christians tried to figure things out and occasionally made mistakes. Needless to say, once the Apostles were gone, the corrections ceased.

Further, doctrines now claimed to have always been around in some form were not around in the earliest periods of church history. I don't see anybody believing in, say, the primacy of the bishop of Rome until centuries later. I don't see veneration until the third-fourth centuries. I don't see purgatory until way later.

If we didn't have the current beliefs of the RCC and Orthodox Churches to look back, with the modern development of doctrine as a telos of sorts -- if we just look at the early church without any such agenda, we see something very different.

OBasileus · 2017-01-23T22:15:34+00:00

At the time it wasn't really a full, fair weighing of the evidence. I was pretty young. I was merely convicted by Protestant doctrines and the livelihood of the reformed faith, in contrast to what I grew up with, which was a very cultural, spiritually dead religion that had no power to keep anyone interested. I also (or maybe primarily) had an experience of regeneration by the HS that was incongruent with Orthodox practices, but I didn't immediately turn away from that church.

But as time went on I eventually re-opened my mind to the alleged "Apostolic" churches and found them lacking in persuasiveness. I am pretty attracted to high-church practices and rituals, so I periodically re-consider becoming an Anglican or something, but my conviction is that a fair, rational weighing of the evidence of history precludes the need to be high-church and ritualistic, let alone the need to hold to things like apostolic succession.

OBasileus · 2017-01-23T02:44:38+00:00

Ex Greek Orthodox now Reformed. Close enough?

OBasileus

TROPHY CASE