Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
From what has been posted here, I have the impression that to belong to the Orthodox church, you must learn the original Greek language to be able to read the true scripture which only they possess. OR, you must blindly trust those who are teaching you, and believe that they are teaching you the truth.
I think we have established that the scriptures are superfluous in the Orthodox Church. The teachings of the Orthodox Church (the traditions of men) have fully supplanted the scripture as the authority upon which they base their faith. They believe that their traditions are pure, whereas the scriptures are corrupt.
Only Non-Orthodox scripture is corrupt, but not the scripture they produced in Greek! However, you are right :),that tradition trumps scripture and we are back to that circular validation thing again.
“They believe that their traditions are pure, whereas the scriptures are corrupt.”
No, no, most noble LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*. Their’s is an ancient hermeneutic found in a Lewis Carroll manuscript.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone,” it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”
I couldn't agree with you more, dear 'pipe!
Thank you for your observations about Christianity in China. I am hearing this, too, just as you report it.
Of course, hand-copied editions of the Holy Scriptures are rife with opportunities for errors to creep in. Still, you need this "dangerous book" to testify to the living faith and to transmit it to others; so you do what you can. If no printed texts are available, you hand copy. And may God ever bless them who undertake such a daunting task.
"Is God cool, or what?"
All praise and glory be to God!
Mormons?... and you're hanging with the psuedo angel Moroni..
Cause you're acting like a Moronite..
I would find no joy in heresy; Our Lord was thought of as being heretical against Judaism, not Christianity.
And heresy, for heresy’s sake, cannot be considered a good hing.
Actually, the Church validated Scripture. And there it stops.
Jeepers Alamo-Girl, that's rich! Oh my.
Just turn the other cheek and count it all to God's glory.
But it does not follow that such an apparent brilliant theologian was at the same time a theological thug and a temporal tyrant. His depressing theology took hope away from the people, mixing it with a message of hidden elitism, and removed the responsibility of one’s actions in their contribution towards life everlasting.
How could God Judge a pre programmed robot slave? That’s like creating a mechanical device in order to perform in a certain fashion and then discarding it simply because it performed what it was created to do, and the mechanical device, operating indistiguishably from the first, is exalted simply becuase it performed what it was created to do.
It makes no sense temporally or theologically.
Hoser, dude. You were the one that brought up the pearl of great price. And you’re the one making some really contradictory statements.
Theological mess. Swim the Tiber and we’ll get out the Mr. Clean.
Indeed.. LoL..
Oh! I now get your reference to the Mormon book.. but I was referring to the biblical metaphor of Jesus in the New Testament.. I missed your point, as you missed mine.. We passed each other in the fog of preaching..
What is it again you are preaching?..
When you’re on very thin theological ice, and defense is tricky, offense is often a preferred methodology.
Let us remember all those who hear the little voices telling them what to do. According to http://www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/stories/2006/1689941.htm, about 10 percent of the population hear voices that aren’t there. Apparently Socrates and Joan of Arc heard voices, for instance. People bereaved may hear the newly deceased. Fervently religious may also hear voices.
It may be more usual than we realize.
Here’s the thing: just because you’re hearing a voice doesn’t make it right. And if you are justifying yourself on the basis of those voices, then anything is possible to justify.
The same message as Fulton Sheen. Apparently my oratory and persuasive skills are considerably less than his.
Jesuit jabberwocky.
Sure
That's true
I agree.
That's right.
I'm tempted to take my points as granted and go home. However..
[Knowing what the result of allowing free will would be - foreknowing - God created man with free will.]
And that leaves God a limited sphere within which to create His plan.
He's not limited to choose this finite creation. It could have been different; His choice. It's still whatever sphere He chooses.
if God's plan is micro specific, as I suspect it is, then human free will would be a problem.
Only if God's omniscience is not "micro specific."
That's what I mean by random.
Your definition of random is just incorrect.
Now, what if God "needs" a particular pair to get together for His purposes?
If creation did not meet his purposes, He would have a different creation. He foreknew whether this particular pair would get together or not.
If God does not interfere,
Non sequitor. Foreknowing doesn't have anything to do with God not "interferring."
then He has to "wait" until a pair comes along that meets His specifications, AND freely decides to pair up.
He fore-knew. He fore-knew. He fore-knew.
We run the risk of humanizing God in these discussions and of reducing religion to philosophy. So I tread lightly in discussing logic. It's only a point because you maintain it's logically impossible, generally, for man to have free will and God to have a plan.
Your logic if flawed. God could have created differently; He knows everything; if He wished events in His creation differently; He would have created differently.
You argument continually limits God's omniscience and omnipotence. He's "waiting" for something (doesn't foreknow who/when); He has a "limited sphere" within which to work (He couldn't choose a different sphere).
Knowing - microknowing if you wish - what the result of allowing free will would be God created man with free will.
My point combines what we agree we know about God and what we know about man:
God is omniscient and omnipotent. We can take these as given. Man has free will. We know this from scripture, from the teaching of the Church for almost two thousand years, and from our personal experience of reality.
If you believe God has a plan and is omniscient and omnipotent, then this is your basic starting ground. Logic does not get in your way here.
Do you wear the same cape?.. They re-run old TV programs of his on my cable station.. The man is decked out like a RC super hero.. quite funny, I would say..
Yeah.. True... I feel guilty snickering at him..
He Must be the proto type of father Guido Sarducci(SNL)..
Amen! Great post.
"...what God does with His words in the believer..."
Precisely, amazingly, graciously so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.