Shouldn’t be. The theology of The Church is quite clear,
The theology of YOUR church is quite clear, and it is equally clear that it is in direct conflict with the teaching of Christ, the OT and Apostolic teaching of the NT.
MLG, as is the error of the West in worshiping a blood thirsty monster. Unless of course I’ve got it wrong and the West really doesn’t believe that Christ’s bloody sacrifice was meant to propitiate a wrathful and blood lusting god. Tell me I got it wrong, MLG. :)
Then my assessment is correct, you and the EO reject the clear teaching of the OT, Christ and the Apostolic teaching of the NT on the propitiatory nature of the Atonement.
Your slight of hand by using emotionally charged rhetoric, such as "a bloodthirsty monster" and "bllod lusting god" only serves to further demonstrate your avoidance of every passage cited to you of the Blood Sacrifice being neccessary for the remission of sin.
Take the blood out of the Atonement and you have no Atonement and no remission of sin.
“Then my assessment is correct, you and the EO reject the clear teaching of the OT, Christ and the Apostolic teaching of the NT on the propitiatory nature of the Atonement.”
No, MLG, your assessment is wrong. Orthodoxy has never rejected the teachings of the scriptures. The Church defined what was and was not scripture. It was able to do that through the HS by Whom The Church understands scripture. As I said before, the sacrifice was propitiary, at least in form, and there is absolutely no question but that Christ had to die.
Now honestly, do you think my words were overcharged, MLG? The god you worship does demand innocent blood does it not? It does create human beings which are damned from the moment of creation, does it not? It hates sinners and kills them does it not? It sends sinners to hell for eternal torment, even though they were created for that end, does it not? Tell me MLG, how does one describe such a “Dagon” in polite terms?