Christian Discussion Thread V

[Tarsonis Survivors]

No they wouldn't. The Catholic and Orthodox would agree that the early church were both catholic and orthodox. We have a shared heritage that lasted until the great Schism when our respective monikers were earned. As for th Copts I'm less familiar with their history, but I'm quite sure neither the Catholics nor Orthodox support their doctrines.



Catholicism and Orthodoxy do not come from scripture. Rather scripture comes from Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

I believe the Copts split off around the fifth century, so they would presumably agree that there were a few hundred years of the Church being unified and correct.

ah, very good then.

[South East Europe]

The Orthodox and Coptic Churches would disagree with you. And considering Protestantism comes from the same source as Catholicism (Scripture), we're not "pretending" anything.

You do know,the Orthodox, Coptics and Catholics are all in communion with each other? Also, Protestant beliefs came a good one thousand years later than the original churches. Technically the Chaldean Catholics are the original Christians.

[South East Europe]

Well, perhaps we shall see. Tell me what your concerns are and I will tell you my concerns.

Widespread contraception, divorce, and disbelief in the transubstantiation among Catholics are the main ones.

So, we do agree... Lol, except I will also say the rampant pedophilia, theft of church property by parishioners and homophobia are also immoral.

[Cannabis Islands]

Well, perhaps we shall see. Tell me what your concerns are and I will tell you my concerns.

Widespread contraception, divorce, and disbelief in the transubstantiation among Catholics are the main ones.

But do you admit that there are cases of outliners that do have an accurate understanding of the above and still leave? There were apostates before V2, you do know?

[Salus Maior]

The Orthodox and Coptic Churches would disagree with you. And considering Protestantism comes from the same source as Catholicism (Scripture), we're not "pretending" anything.

You do know,the Orthodox, Coptics and Catholics are all in communion with each other? Also, Protestant beliefs came a good one thousand years later than the original churches. Technically the Chaldean Catholics are the original Christians.

Technically, the first followers of Jesus were essentially Messianic Jews and even worshiped at the Temple in Jerusalem and continued to follow Jewish traditions. And also, this communion between Catholics and Orthodoxy is a relatively recent phenomenon, and both branches excommunicated each other for quite a while.

And also, so what? That does not de-legitimize it as Christian. It was borne out of the direct teachings of the original Apostles, Christ himself, and the Apostle Paul. Which would link it back to the early Church.

Catholicism and Orthodoxy do not come from scripture. Rather scripture comes from Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

The Bible, as you should know, is the collection of the writings of the Apostles and Saint Paul's letters, written to guide the early church and records what Jesus did in His ministry. If anything, it's those writings which established the early Church, not the other way around. Although I will give it to you that it was Orthodoxy that compiled said writings into the Bible.

[Constantinopolis]

No they wouldn't. The Catholic and Orthodox would agree that the early church were both catholic and orthodox. We have a shared heritage that lasted until the great Schism when our respective monikers were earned. As for th Copts I'm less familiar with their history, but I'm quite sure neither the Catholics nor Orthodox support their doctrines.

Catholicism and Orthodoxy do not come from scripture. Rather scripture comes from Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

I believe the Copts split off around the fifth century, so they would presumably agree that there were a few hundred years of the Church being unified and correct.

The Copts are part of the Oriental Communion, which started out as a dissident faction within the undivided Church in the 5th century, but gradually began to set up parallel hierarchies (at first, dissident and mainstream bishops competed over the same sees, but increasingly the dissidents elected alternative bishops of their own), and effectively became a separate Church sometime in the 6th century.

You do know,the Orthodox, Coptics and Catholics are all in communion with each other?

No. We are not.

Catholics are not in communion with anyone who refuses to accept the supremacy of the Pope of Rome.

And the Orthodox are not in communion with the Oriental churches (which include the Copts), although we have very good relations with them and we hope to restore communion soon.

Also, Protestant beliefs came a good one thousand years later than the original churches.

Yes. That is correct.

Technically the Chaldean Catholics are the original Christians.

No. Or, well, not quite. The Chaldean Catholics are descended from the early Christians of Mesopotamia - an ancient community that goes back to the first or second century, yes, but not the earliest Christian community by any means.

[Conscentia]

Are you willing to share the cause of the change?

It was a gradual process, taking several years. If I had the time and the inclination, I could describe it in detail. But here's a quick summary (which doesn't really do justice to the process, but is good enough):

I came to conclude that life without a purpose is meaningless and not worth living, and the only way that life could have a purpose is if the universe has a purpose, and the only way the universe could have a purpose is if some sort of God exists. Thus, I had to believe in God in order for my life to have meaning. So I decided to believe in (a) God.

It took several more years, and quite a bit of study of various religions, until I settled on the Christian God. And some 10 years after that, I settled on Orthodoxy as the correct form of Christianity.

Interesting... I've never seen this reason before. I cannot fault your conclusion concerning purpose implying the existence of an intelligent creator - the only way the universe could have a purpose indeed seems to be only if it were designed by something for a purpose. The only sort of thing that can create purpose is an intelligent sort of thing. Although one would need other arguments to narrow it down to the "God" of Orthodox Christianity specifically. But I don't want to turn this into an argument about the validity of Christianity, so I won't ask about those arguments.

I honestly have never understood why someone would want to have a purpose; or would think that it is necessary to have a purpose; or would think that life can only have value if it has purpose. In-fact, I think it detracts from the value of life to judge it solely according to purpose. I don't think this is the thread to discuss this though.

Ultimately, for me, you could say it does not matter if God truly exists or not.
[...] I am doing the right thing either way.

Not really. You're doing the right thing if God exists. However, if he doesn't, then by your own reasoning there is no "right" thing - so you aren't.

If God does not exist, then good is an illusion, evil has already won, and death reigns.

1. God commanded humans not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. According to the myth, if it were not for the serpent humans would remain ignorant. It was apparently not our intended purpose to know the difference. And it would seem that the knowledge of the difference comes from the fruit, not directly from God.
2. Evil has not won. It too is an illusion.
3. Many people people believe that it is possible to live ethically without God, including Christians. The Christian philosopher Kiekegaard made a distinction between the ethical man and the religious man.

[Bishoproot]

I have to ask what Protestant beliefs came a thousand years after the original churches?
I realize protestantism as a schism from the Roman church came at that time, but could someone point to uniquely protestant theology that didn't exist until then?

[Constantinopolis]

To be clear: Starting in the mid-20th century, the Orthodox and Catholic Churches became quite friendly towards each other. Unlike in the past, we actually talk to each other now, and get along quite well. But we are not in communion by any means, nor is it likely that we would enter communion at any point in the foreseeable future.

[Salus Maior]

I have to ask what Protestant beliefs came a thousand years after the original churches?
I realize protestantism as a schism from the Roman church came at that time, but could someone point to uniquely protestant theology that didn't exist until then?

Well, Sola Scriptura, for one (that does not make it necessarily wrong, mind you). And while I'm not too familiar with Calvinism I believe that a lot of their theology was unheard of before as well.

To be clear: Starting in the mid-20th century, the Orthodox and Catholic Churches became quite friendly towards each other. Unlike in the past, we actually talk to each other now, and get along quite well. But we are not in communion by any means, nor is it likely that we would enter communion at any point in the foreseeable future.

Ah, that must have been what I was thinking of when I replied to the other guy earlier. I think at the very least they lifted the excommunication, right?

[Cannabis Islands]

To be clear: Starting in the mid-20th century, the Orthodox and Catholic Churches became quite friendly towards each other. Unlike in the past, we actually talk to each other now, and get along quite well. But we are not in communion by any means, nor is it likely that we would enter communion at any point in the foreseeable future.

And this brings Catholics to a realization, that since Vatican II, The Catholic Church has been looking at this issue with rose-colored glasses. The church authority act like all is solved between the theological disputes between Catholic and Orthodox. Most Roman Catholics that I encounter are extremely hesitant to bring these differences while the Orthodox are more than willing to talk about them. The reason is that Catholics are bound to the ecumenism mandated by Vatican II.

[Bishoproot]

I have to ask what Protestant beliefs came a thousand years after the original churches?
I realize protestantism as a schism from the Roman church came at that time, but could someone point to uniquely protestant theology that didn't exist until then?

Well, Sola Scriptura, for one (that does not make it necessarily wrong, mind you). And while I'm not too familiar with Calvinism I believe that a lot of their theology was unheard of before as well.

To be clear: Starting in the mid-20th century, the Orthodox and Catholic Churches became quite friendly towards each other. Unlike in the past, we actually talk to each other now, and get along quite well. But we are not in communion by any means, nor is it likely that we would enter communion at any point in the foreseeable future.

Ah, that must have been what I was thinking of when I replied to the other guy earlier. I think at the very least they lifted the excommunication, right?

Is sola scriptura really a substantial difference from orthodoxy? Forgive my ignorance.
I'm not versed in Calvingsm, though I recognize as a Protestant I'm likely some fashion of Calvinist ... Admittedly not educated as well as I should be on the origins of own beliefs.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

\

Catholicism and Orthodoxy do not come from scripture. Rather scripture comes from Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

The Bible, as you should know, is the collection of the writings of the Apostles and Saint Paul's letters, written to guide the early church and records what Jesus did in His ministry. If anything, it's those writings which established the early Church, not the other way around. Although I will give it to you that it was Orthodoxy that compiled said writings into the Bible.

Wrong it is a collection of certain letters and writings that the later Church saw fit to Codify as scripture.

Those letters and writings were part of a larger Apostolic Ministry that was mostly oral, and passed down from Apostles to their successors as Sacred Tradition.

[Angleter]

So you think that it has the potential to be a mortal sin, but because of social factors and pressures rarely constitutes one?

No not pressures. Societal realities. I.e can a family support a certain amount of children. Is it ethical to have a child you can't support? Is it ethical to continue having children beyond replacement rates, in planet that is over populated? For couples where one is taking contraceptives for health reasons, is it a mortal sin to engage in relations?

All things to consider.

In an age when the overwhelming majority of us are far richer than our ancestors could even have imagined, I don't think we can justify contraception because of the financial costs of an extra child (or because the adoption services are overstretched, or whatever). Likewise, overpopulation is less of an issue now than at pretty much any time in human history - though the world may perhaps have been stuck in a Malthusian trap (technological advancement --> more food per person --> increased income --> population growth --> less food per person --> back to square one) for the first 1800 years of Christianity (and beforehand), it isn't now. And in any case, there's always NFP (which, again, it has never been easier to follow).

As for health reasons, as far as I'm aware, women taking contraceptives for other purposes (i.e. with contraception as an unfortunate side-effect) aren't required to be abstinent.

[Salus Maior]

Well, Sola Scriptura, for one (that does not make it necessarily wrong, mind you). And while I'm not too familiar with Calvinism I believe that a lot of their theology was unheard of before as well.



Ah, that must have been what I was thinking of when I replied to the other guy earlier. I think at the very least they lifted the excommunication, right?

Is sola scriptura really a substantial difference from orthodoxy? Forgive my ignorance.
I'm not versed in Calvingsm, though I recognize as a Protestant I'm likely some fashion of Calvinist ... Admittedly not educated as well as I should be on the origins of own beliefs.

Well, just know that the majority of regulars in this thread are anti-Protestant to some degree so a lot of information you may get will be biased.

Short version of Protestant origins: Protestantism arose from Catholicism in the 16th century due to discontent as to how the Catholic Church was operating and what doctrine they preached. War ensued, and Europe was pretty firmly split between the two. And we've been arguing ever since

[Mahdistan]

Hello, I'm a Muslim and it's my first time here, but I strongly believe Islamic-Christian relations are in need of strengthening and supporting. But anyway, I have a question for any Orthodox Christians here; how is the fact that Istanbul (Constantinople) is held by a Muslim country viewed? Would this be the equivalent of Muslims holding Rome to Catholics, or do you not hold the city to as high of regards? If yes, is there any mainstream Orthodox group advocating for it to be returned?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

To be clear: Starting in the mid-20th century, the Orthodox and Catholic Churches became quite friendly towards each other. Unlike in the past, we actually talk to each other now, and get along quite well. But we are not in communion by any means, nor is it likely that we would enter communion at any point in the foreseeable future.

And this brings Catholics to a realization, that since Vatican II, The Catholic Church has been looking at this issue with rose-colored glasses. The church authority act like all is solved between the theological disputes between Catholic and Orthodox. Most Roman Catholics that I encounter are extremely hesitant to bring these differences while the Orthodox are more than willing to talk about them. The reason is that Catholics are bound to the ecumenism mandated by Vatican II.

Actually it's more like most Roman Catholics aren't familiar enough with the differences to have a read dialogue about them. Where as the Orthodox are acutely aware, given their history. Roman Catholics are more aware of Protestant Differences than Orthodox ones.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Hello, I'm a Muslim and it's my first time here, but I strongly believe Islamic-Christian relations are in need of strengthening and supporting. But anyway, I have a question for any Orthodox Christians here; how is the fact that Istanbul (Constantinople) is held by a Muslim country viewed? Would this be the equivalent of Muslims holding Rome to Catholics, or do you not hold the city to as high of regards? If yes, is there any mainstream Orthodox group advocating for it to be returned?

It is a grievous insult and the Orthodox want their city returned.

[Salus Maior]

Wrong it is a collection of certain letters and writings that the later Church saw fit to Codify as scripture.

Probably because it was rather influential in how it shaped the church ;P after all, the major doctrine points are in the New Testament.

I.E, Mary's Virgin Birth, the Trinity is evident, separation from Jewish Law, etc.etc.etc.

[Salus Maior]

It is a grievous insult and the Orthodox want their city returned.

As a Protestant I feel the same.

[Luminesa]

\



The Bible, as you should know, is the collection of the writings of the Apostles and Saint Paul's letters, written to guide the early church and records what Jesus did in His ministry. If anything, it's those writings which established the early Church, not the other way around. Although I will give it to you that it was Orthodoxy that compiled said writings into the Bible.

Wrong it is a collection of certain letters and writings that the later Church saw fit to Codify as scripture.

Those letters and writings were part of a larger Apostolic Ministry that was mostly oral, and passed down from Apostles to their successors as Sacred Tradition.

Plus you have the Old Testament, which was written...I dunno...over 1000 years before Jesus was born? So yeah, there's that.

[Bishoproot]

Is sola scriptura really a substantial difference from orthodoxy? Forgive my ignorance.
I'm not versed in Calvingsm, though I recognize as a Protestant I'm likely some fashion of Calvinist ... Admittedly not educated as well as I should be on the origins of own beliefs.

Well, just know that the majority of regulars in this thread are anti-Protestant to some degree so a lot of information you may get will be biased.

Short version of Protestant origins: Protestantism arose from Catholicism in the 16th century due to discontent as to how the Catholic Church was operating and what doctrine they preached. War ensued, and Europe was pretty firmly split between the two. And we've been arguing ever since

Warning noted.
I'm very familiar with history of the reformation. I'm merely less familiar with theological origins. Like for instance, if my life depended on explaining Calvinism, I would be dead in short order.

I confess I've never held much stock in the belief of exceptional division theologically...with regards to salvation between the Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestants... Barring strange one offs of course.
I'm mean you had Apostolic ministry, you had the original church, you had the schism, a thousand years later you had the Roman Church's bastard child of Protestantism.
I'm aware of...Cyril I think attempting to court protestantism back into the orthodox fold...this inferred to me some measure of common ground.

I think, man is just doing a good job at failing Christ's church. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Salus Maior]

Well, just know that the majority of regulars in this thread are anti-Protestant to some degree so a lot of information you may get will be biased.

Short version of Protestant origins: Protestantism arose from Catholicism in the 16th century due to discontent as to how the Catholic Church was operating and what doctrine they preached. War ensued, and Europe was pretty firmly split between the two. And we've been arguing ever since

Warning noted.
I'm very familiar with history of the reformation. I'm merely less familiar with theological origins. Like for instance, if my life depended on explaining Calvinism, I would be dead in short order.

I confess I've never held much stock in the belief of exceptional division theologically...with regards to salvation between the Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestants... Barring strange one offs of course.
I'm mean you had Apostolic ministry, you had the original church, you had the schism, a thousand years later you had the Roman Church's bastard child of Protestantism.
I'm aware of...Cyril I think attempting to court protestantism back into the orthodox fold...this inferred to me some measure of common ground.

I think, man is just doing a good job at failing Christ's church. Maybe I'm wrong.

Catholicism/Orthodoxy have a lot more in common with Protestantism than either would admit. After all, we're all Trinitarian, we know the importance of Baptism, accept the virgin birth of Mary, and so on. It's tradition we get caught on, and it was made farily clear by Christ himself that tradition should not be compulsory.

But yes, I agree that humanity has screwed the pooch on keeping the Church united.

[Conscentia]

[...]Catholicism/Orthodoxy have a lot more in common with Protestantism than either would admit. After all, we're all Trinitarian, we know the importance of Baptism, accept the virgin birth of Mary, and so on. It's tradition we get caught on.

Non all Protestants are trinitarians, and non-trinitarianism isn't even a new development in Protestantism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... eformation

[Mahdistan]

Hello, I'm a Muslim and it's my first time here, but I strongly believe Islamic-Christian relations are in need of strengthening and supporting. But anyway, I have a question for any Orthodox Christians here; how is the fact that Istanbul (Constantinople) is held by a Muslim country viewed? Would this be the equivalent of Muslims holding Rome to Catholics, or do you not hold the city to as high of regards? If yes, is there any mainstream Orthodox group advocating for it to be returned?

It is a grievous insult and the Orthodox want their city returned.

I see, and if it were, would something like trying to revive the Byzantines be done, or would it be made specifically into a holy city, like the Vatican City?