Where did I go wrong!!!!

[Cagliostro]

Well, I'm not going to be dragged into this discussion again. But does everyone agree with Hashi about the ages then? Just curious. Thanks everyone.

No. In Orthodoxy we commune babies. They are raised and steeped in the faith. We don't leave them in some kind of vacuum until "they are old enough". Neither do we expect them to do or understand more than they can. Bu t they are members of the Church from baptism - intellectual consent is not an issue (unless it is deliberately rejected). Children - even small ones - are members of the family.

So.......are you now saying I'm a bad parent? We may have a problem here.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

That means you need to drag yourself back out of the conversation. Starting now, just let it go.

Different children will mature at different rates; they will reach sufficient age to think about things at different times. I was only throwing out a couple of number that seem "right".

They are your children so use your best judgment about it.

[rusmeister]

Well, I'm not going to be dragged into this discussion again. But does everyone agree with Hashi about the ages then? Just curious. Thanks everyone.

No. In Orthodoxy we commune babies. They are raised and steeped in the faith. We don't leave them in some kind of vacuum until "they are old enough". Neither do we expect them to do or understand more than they can. Bu t they are members of the Church from baptism - intellectual consent is not an issue (unless it is deliberately rejected). Children - even small ones - are members of the family.

So.......are you now saying I'm a bad parent? We may have a problem here.

I don't make personal remarks.
If a parent told their child, "I don't know what truth is - I don't even think there is any - just figure it out on your own" - then that would be bad parenting. But I'm not even suggesting that you do that.

What I was trying to say in that post is that we treat children as members of the Church family from baptism, which is generally done within 40 days of birth. This is greatly at odds with Catholic practice and the Protestant practice with which I am familiar, which requires intellectual consent before admitting people to the Church - an attitude which, btw, leaves adults who are mentally underdeveloped out in the cold, too. It takes a certain level of mental sophistication to reject what your parents who love you tell you is true - a quality more negative than positive and most common in teens in a rebellious phase. (FWIW, I do not support telling kids Santa stories as actual truth; as anything other than stories, on the level with Grimm or Andersen at best).

[Fist and Faith]

The reason the latter is nonsense is that what you really mean is "encourage them to ask questions and not question the answers I give them." Since you are teaching them according to the truth, they cannot possibly gain anything by not accepting your answers.


And where's my ducks!

The huge assumption being made here appears to be that ideas are being taught by rote with no way to test or demonstrate them.

That is the case with your beliefs. You cannot test or demonstrate the idea that there is a God, or any kind of afterlife. You can only list the things that make you think God and an afterlife exist. And those things may or may not make someone else think they exist.

The merit in questioning is when there is real reason to doubt something.

There is also merit in questioning when there is no real reason to accept something.

The vice is in simply teaching them to doubt everything; that even any answers they might find are wholly unreliable; that they can never know truth.

I agree. I believe I have found truth just as surely as you believe you have. I'd be interested in hearing from someone who does not think we can ever know truth.

[Vraith]

]
I agree. I believe I have found truth just as surely as you believe you have. I'd be interested in hearing from someone who does not think we can ever know truth.

I don't. We can know relative truths, contextual truths, facts by the billions or trillions. But not The Truth. [Or even A]
We all die. Unless something is mistaken, or there is some "other" force, the universe dies. That's not Truth, just a fact. Certain things have more consistency, more facts behind them, more coherence, so more true-ness in function, more use. But still ain't Truth. [either THE or A].
False, on the other hand, is ubiquitous.

[aliantha]

(E)ach person needs to find what is the Truth for them. The All is the source and wishes us to acknowledge it (or not) by whatever means resonates with each of us. Nothing more.

Well said.

I think that to be the most pernicious falsehood there is. That is one of the last lies straight from hell (which I reserve the right to be able to define more clearly at a later point) - but I do not believe it to be a deception on the part of a poster but a demonic lie received as true by fallible humans.

I suppose it's useless saying that to you, but that is the heart of all disagreement whatsoever. What is truth? That statement denies that it exists. There can be no conversation between people who think it doesn't exist - whether you call it "personal" or "subjective" or whatever and people who know that it does.

Please understand that none of that is personal slight. Truth IS, and is independent of our perception of it - so we may correctly or incorrectly perceive it, or to greater or lesser degrees. THAT is truth.

Glad you prefaced your first sentence with "I think". Because that's exactly what we're talking about here -- our own personal thoughts and feelings about the subject of whether there's a God/gods.

You've made your position on this abundantly clear. As, I think, have I. But the fact that you cannot conceive of a Truth which is tolerant enough to allow *many* paths to its discovery doesn't prove that you're right.

Which is the same thing Fist has been saying to you for the past several months....

[Fist and Faith]

I agree with you completely, Vraith. It just happens that I call that entire worldview the Truth. And a part of that worldview (At least mine. Our worldviews may have only as much common ground as what you just said. Heh.) is that different people need different answers in order to achieve any degree of happiness and fulfillment. rus' answers are what he needs. I cannot be happy or fulfilled with answers that are found via his methods. He cannot be happy or fulfilled with my answers. But we both find happiness and fulfillment with the Truths we have found.

[rusmeister]

Well said.

I think that to be the most pernicious falsehood there is. That is one of the last lies straight from hell (which I reserve the right to be able to define more clearly at a later point) - but I do not believe it to be a deception on the part of a poster but a demonic lie received as true by fallible humans.

I suppose it's useless saying that to you, but that is the heart of all disagreement whatsoever. What is truth? That statement denies that it exists. There can be no conversation between people who think it doesn't exist - whether you call it "personal" or "subjective" or whatever and people who know that it does.

Please understand that none of that is personal slight. Truth IS, and is independent of our perception of it - so we may correctly or incorrectly perceive it, or to greater or lesser degrees. THAT is truth.

Glad you prefaced your first sentence with "I think". Because that's exactly what we're talking about here -- our own personal thoughts and feelings about the subject of whether there's a God/gods.

You've made your position on this abundantly clear. As, I think, have I. But the fact that you cannot conceive of a Truth which is tolerant enough to allow *many* paths to its discovery doesn't prove that you're right.

Which is the same thing Fist has been saying to you for the past several months....

Hi Ali,
I can conceive all kinds of truths. I can imagine an Islamic paradise, a pagan Valhalla, etc etc etc. But if they are NOT true, then you can't speak about conceiving them as true. I can conceive a flat earth - and a person living in a small and limited world can believe it to be true. But is it true? No. Should I treat it as actually true? Obviously it would be foolish on my part to do so. Can I acknowledge that they do have reasons for believeing what they do? Sure.

To put the shoe on the other foot, can YOU conceive of Orthodox Christianity as true? Obviously not, for if Orthodoxy is true, then Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and there is no other way to the Father but by Him. So it's no use being dismayed that I am not going to embrace many paths that both contradict each other and are self-contradictory as "alternative ways to truth", even though I can accept that they have varying degrees of truth in them.

[rusmeister]

]
I agree. I believe I have found truth just as surely as you believe you have. I'd be interested in hearing from someone who does not think we can ever know truth.

I don't. We can know relative truths, contextual truths, facts by the billions or trillions. But not The Truth. [Or even A]
We all die. Unless something is mistaken, or there is some "other" force, the universe dies. That's not Truth, just a fact. Certain things have more consistency, more facts behind them, more coherence, so more true-ness in function, more use. But still ain't Truth. [either THE or A].
False, on the other hand, is ubiquitous.

I think you know my position by now, Vraith - I'd certainly agree that we cannot possibly know everything -where we differ is that it seems logical to me that if there IS a Creator and He reveals that of the Truth which we can "grok" (and even then, not always and not all), then we COULD know Truth - and in fact can. All you have to do is accept the proposition. And if it explains all of these curious aspects of life - if the strange shape of the key fits the strange shape of the lock, then you've found Truth. If you do not accept it, then you can't know Truth. But then, whose fault is that, if the Truth is actually there? If you dogmatically affirm that it is not there, then it looks like you are claiming Truth yourself in the very breath of denying it.

But yes, false is ubiquitous. I'm glad we agree on that, at least!

[rusmeister]

I agree with you completely, Vraith. It just happens that I call that entire worldview the Truth. And a part of that worldview (At least mine. Our worldviews may have only as much common ground as what you just said. Heh.) is that different people need different answers in order to achieve any degree of happiness and fulfillment.

This philosophy works fine until your ship runs aground and you can't speak of "happiness" or "fulfillment" any more.

rus' answers are what he needs.

This is true, in the sense that I do need an explanation for the enigma of death, and the fact that we do not want to die. But the problem is in speaking of what one "needs". Who knows what we need? We very frequently do not know what we need. What exactly does "need" mean? It looks like you are speaking of those perceptions of happiness and fulfillment again. A drug addict gets them from his fix, so you could then say that he "needs" his fix in order to achieve happiness and fulfillment. And this is the problem. We are all drug addicts. We are all slaves to our passions. Some people learn this. Some never do. The principle that 'the better a person is, the more he realizes how awful he is' is one not sufficiently contemplated in our self-congratulatory state.

I cannot be happy or fulfilled with answers that are found via his methods.

This also is not true.
You may want different methods. How I speak of it "doesn't work" for you. I can accept that. But if you found the same answer via a different method - and there are some methods that I would shudder and pray to be delivered from - then it is not at all impossible that you could be happy. Of course, "happy" is another word that needs unpacking. If it means a sense of euphoria, then we're all screwed. But if it means realizing the good in my life and cultivating a sense of gratitude, then we can find common definition.

He cannot be happy or fulfilled with my answers.

Obviously not. If an answer is both false (For there are surely such things, as we all seem to agree) and means a permanent end of said happiness, then obviously that can neither fulfill me or make me happy.

But we both find happiness and fulfillment with the Truths we have found.

Again, the meaning of those words is assumed and poorly defined. I think it means "good feelings" as you put it. But feelings come and go - they have a tendency to evaporate. The main fact that I think needs front-stage consideration is the end of life and the end of any talk of happiness in this world.

[rdhopeca]

I cannot be happy or fulfilled with answers that are found via his methods.

This also is not true.
You may want different methods. How I speak of it "doesn't work" for you. I can accept that. But if you found the same answer via a different method - and there are some methods that I would shudder and pray to be delivered from - then it is not at all impossible that you could be happy. Of course, "happy" is another word that needs unpacking. If it means a sense of euphoria, then we're all screwed. But if it means realizing the good in my life and cultivating a sense of gratitude, then we can find common definition.

He cannot be happy or fulfilled with my answers.

Obviously not. If an answer is both false (For there are surely such things, as we all seem to agree) and means a permanent end of said happiness, then obviously that can neither fulfill me or make me happy.

I find this megalomaniacal in the extreme. Fist says he can't be happy via your methods, and you call him a liar. Fists says you can't be happy via his methods, you call him a truthsayer.

I call cow dung on this, dude. Contrary to your opinion, you do not know what is best for every other human being on the planet.

[aliantha]

To put the shoe on the other foot, can YOU conceive of Orthodox Christianity as true?

Sure I can.

I can conceive of a overarching Truth that encompasses your Truth, and my Truth, and the Truth of everybody else on the Watch, and the Truth of everybody else in the world -- *and* that allows each of us, with our limited understanding, a path to reach Truth.

What I can't conceive of is a Truth that is so limited that it would force every one of us to accept an all-male priesthood, etc., etc., as the *only* way to reach it. My Universe is more forgiving than that.

[rusmeister]

I cannot be happy or fulfilled with answers that are found via his methods.

This also is not true.
You may want different methods. How I speak of it "doesn't work" for you. I can accept that. But if you found the same answer via a different method - and there are some methods that I would shudder and pray to be delivered from - then it is not at all impossible that you could be happy. Of course, "happy" is another word that needs unpacking. If it means a sense of euphoria, then we're all screwed. But if it means realizing the good in my life and cultivating a sense of gratitude, then we can find common definition.

He cannot be happy or fulfilled with my answers.

Obviously not. If an answer is both false (For there are surely such things, as we all seem to agree) and means a permanent end of said happiness, then obviously that can neither fulfill me or make me happy.

I find this megalomaniacal in the extreme. Fist says he can't be happy via your methods, and you call him a liar. Fists says you can't be happy via his methods, you call him a truthsayer.

I call cow dung on this, dude. Contrary to your opinion, you do not know what is best for every other human being on the planet.

Rob, it appears to me that you do not understand my words and are jumping to conclusions. From what I said to him, I agreed that my methods don't work - but that if he DID find those answers via other methods, that he COULD be happy - if he found those answers. From what he said of me, I agreed in part, denying that the foundation of truth is personal need for it to be true.

I most certainly did NOT call Fist a liar - he is quite sincere, I have no doubt of that, and there is no personal self-aggrandizement in my words and so "megalomaniac" seems to be quite misplaced. This is a big problem in all of this internet communication - our tendency to misunderstand, especially to misunderstand what we disagree with. Maybe if you read my words again and more carefully, you might see that I both affirm what I believe to be true and acknowledge where I see Fist to have some truth.

[rusmeister]

To put the shoe on the other foot, can YOU conceive of Orthodox Christianity as true?

Sure I can.

I can conceive of a overarching Truth that encompasses your Truth, and my Truth, and the Truth of everybody else on the Watch, and the Truth of everybody else in the world -- *and* that allows each of us, with our limited understanding, a path to reach Truth.

What I can't conceive of is a Truth that is so limited that it would force every one of us to accept an all-male priesthood, etc., etc., as the *only* way to reach it. My Universe is more forgiving than that.

Then you don't understand what the Church claims, that it has and teaches THE Truth of Jesus Christ and Him crucified, and all claims to the contrary as false. An all-male priesthood is not at the center of the issue (although it may be your central objection - I can certainly conceive that. My own thought on that is that if your first dogma, unquestioned and unquestioning, is that women and men ought to be completely interchangeable, then you could not even listen to any explanation of why one sex is called to certain things and another is not).

I think it really important to understand how we see salvation. The danger of putting it simply is that you are bound to have some objection that a simple answer won't cover. But the core of it is this: it can be summed up by saying that we know where God's grace is; we do not know where it is not. My God is more forgiving even than your gods - but he can't save someone who will not be saved - who sets their will against it.

We are responsible for what we know. People born into a world where Christ is risen are responsible on higher level than the ancient pagans were. We don't put limits on God's ability to save us - all of us, except the ones that he has voluntarily put on Himself in order to allow us to be free to reject Him, if we so insist. But a person who knows about Christ and the Church is in a different position from the person who does not and the judgement on them will be greater, and the people most responsible are those who know the most. Given what I know - and STILL I sin - makes me a chief of sinners. I'm not better than you guys. I'm worse. The difference is, I KNOW that to be the case. In a sense, the worse a person is, the better they think they are. As Lewis said, a perfectly bad man thinks he is all right. A good man knows that there is wickedness in his own heart. We know this because we despise the Pharisee, but admire the truly humble and holy man - who is so because he has a better understanding of his own heart.

[Fist and Faith]

I can conceive of Orthodox Christianity as true. I'm not saying it isn't. I'm just saying I don't believe it is. All the pieces fit together to form what I've been saying all along.

I agree with you completely, Vraith. It just happens that I call that entire worldview the Truth. And a part of that worldview (At least mine. Our worldviews may have only as much common ground as what you just said. Heh.) is that different people need different answers in order to achieve any degree of happiness and fulfillment.

This philosophy works fine until your ship runs aground and you can't speak of "happiness" or "fulfillment" any more.

First, that doesn't mean it's not Truth.

However, it works then, too. It just doesn't work fine for you. I'd rather learn my wife is cheating on me and get divorced than be unaware and blissfully happy. Truth offers a kind of happiness, even if it's painful.

rus' answers are what he needs.

This is true, in the sense that I do need an explanation for the enigma of death, and the fact that we do not want to die. But the problem is in speaking of what one "needs". Who knows what we need? We very frequently do not know what we need. What exactly does "need" mean? It looks like you are speaking of those perceptions of happiness and fulfillment again. A drug addict gets them from his fix, so you could then say that he "needs" his fix in order to achieve happiness and fulfillment. And this is the problem. We are all drug addicts. We are all slaves to our passions. Some people learn this. Some never do. The principle that 'the better a person is, the more he realizes how awful he is' is one not sufficiently contemplated in our self-congratulatory state.

It is odd, then, that you are the mose self-congratulatory person I've ever communicated with.

The drug addict analogy is a good one. Life is difficult, and scary, and uncertain. Your faith lets you keep all that at bay, as a heroin addict's fix takes away his pain.

I cannot be happy or fulfilled with answers that are found via his methods.

This also is not true.
You may want different methods. How I speak of it "doesn't work" for you. I can accept that. But if you found the same answer via a different method - and there are some methods that I would shudder and pray to be delivered from - then it is not at all impossible that you could be happy. Of course, "happy" is another word that needs unpacking. If it means a sense of euphoria, then we're all screwed. But if it means realizing the good in my life and cultivating a sense of gratitude, then we can find common definition.

You did not contradict me. What I said is true. I cannot accept answers arrived at via your methods. I didn't say anything about being able to accept the same answers if arrived at through methods I respect. If the method is unreliable, I cannot trust the answers.

He cannot be happy or fulfilled with my answers.

Obviously not. If an answer is both false (For there are surely such things, as we all seem to agree) and means a permanent end of said happiness, then obviously that can neither fulfill me or make me happy.

But we both find happiness and fulfillment with the Truths we have found.

Again, the meaning of those words is assumed and poorly defined. I think it means "good feelings" as you put it. But feelings come and go - they have a tendency to evaporate. The main fact that I think needs front-stage consideration is the end of life and the end of any talk of happiness in this world.

Your opinion of my definitions of happiness and fulfillment is not important. If I say I would be happier in misery over the deaths of everyone I love, and would find more happiness living with that horrible truth than I would embracing your truth just because it is prettier, then what you think of that isn't not relevant. And, the fact is, I cannot embrace your truth even if it is prettier. I don't work that way.

[rusmeister]

I can conceive of Orthodox Christianity as true. I'm not saying it isn't. I'm just saying I don't believe it is. All the pieces fit together to form what I've been saying all along.

I agree with you completely, Vraith. It just happens that I call that entire worldview the Truth. And a part of that worldview (At least mine. Our worldviews may have only as much common ground as what you just said. Heh.) is that different people need different answers in order to achieve any degree of happiness and fulfillment.

This philosophy works fine until your ship runs aground and you can't speak of "happiness" or "fulfillment" any more.

First, that doesn't mean it's not Truth.

However, it works then, too. It just doesn't work fine for you. I'd rather learn my wife is cheating on me and get divorced than be unaware and blissfully happy. Truth offers a kind of happiness, even if it's painful.

rus' answers are what he needs.

This is true, in the sense that I do need an explanation for the enigma of death, and the fact that we do not want to die. But the problem is in speaking of what one "needs". Who knows what we need? We very frequently do not know what we need. What exactly does "need" mean? It looks like you are speaking of those perceptions of happiness and fulfillment again. A drug addict gets them from his fix, so you could then say that he "needs" his fix in order to achieve happiness and fulfillment. And this is the problem. We are all drug addicts. We are all slaves to our passions. Some people learn this. Some never do. The principle that 'the better a person is, the more he realizes how awful he is' is one not sufficiently contemplated in our self-congratulatory state.

It is odd, then, that you are the mose self-congratulatory person I've ever communicated with.

The drug addict analogy is a good one. Life is difficult, and scary, and uncertain. Your faith lets you keep all that at bay, as a heroin addict's fix takes away his pain.

I cannot be happy or fulfilled with answers that are found via his methods.

This also is not true.
You may want different methods. How I speak of it "doesn't work" for you. I can accept that. But if you found the same answer via a different method - and there are some methods that I would shudder and pray to be delivered from - then it is not at all impossible that you could be happy. Of course, "happy" is another word that needs unpacking. If it means a sense of euphoria, then we're all screwed. But if it means realizing the good in my life and cultivating a sense of gratitude, then we can find common definition.

You did not contradict me. What I said is true. I cannot accept answers arrived at via your methods. I didn't say anything about being able to accept the same answers if arrived at through methods I respect. If the method is unreliable, I cannot trust the answers.

He cannot be happy or fulfilled with my answers.

Obviously not. If an answer is both false (For there are surely such things, as we all seem to agree) and means a permanent end of said happiness, then obviously that can neither fulfill me or make me happy.

But we both find happiness and fulfillment with the Truths we have found.

Again, the meaning of those words is assumed and poorly defined. I think it means "good feelings" as you put it. But feelings come and go - they have a tendency to evaporate. The main fact that I think needs front-stage consideration is the end of life and the end of any talk of happiness in this world.

Your opinion of my definitions of happiness and fulfillment is not important. If I say I would be happier in misery over the deaths of everyone I love, and would find more happiness living with that horrible truth than I would embracing your truth just because it is prettier, then what you think of that isn't not relevant. And, the fact is, I cannot embrace your truth even if it is prettier. I don't work that way.

Thanks, Fist. Really.
I do appreciate your long-term willingness to duel - I've referred you to "The Ball and the Cross" before.

I see things here that I do understand and think reasonable (if wrong). But when I say "ship running aground" I mean something truly intolerable. I mean the death of your child (God forbid!!!) or something completely unanswerable - something that would rock the most steadfast "religious" faith. Something that eclipses even the tragedy of unfaithfulness. That's when it won't work - when you really can't tolerate it. That's where I think that a mature Christian faith has a serious advantage over your current philosophy. It does crush the faith of people who weren't sufficiently serious about their faith - I can't get a story by Metropolitan Anthony (of Sourozh) Bloom about a grandmother who lost a grandchild and abandoned faith as a result out of my head.

I don't ever congratulate myself. I'm sorry that you have that impression. I guess that you take my attitude of certainty and interpret it as self-aggrandizement.

FWIW, I agree completely with your last statement - if "my truth" were not true. I don't want a belief because it is pretty or because it comforts me. I want it because it is true. What causes me to seek it in the first place is an explanation of why I should object to death (and so on) in the first place.

[Fist and Faith]

I see things here that I do understand and think reasonable (if wrong). But when I say "ship running aground" I mean something truly intolerable. I mean the death of your child (God forbid!!!) or something completely unanswerable - something that would rock the most steadfast "religious" faith. Something that eclipses even the tragedy of unfaithfulness. That's when it won't work - when you really can't tolerate it. That's where I think that a mature Christian faith has a serious advantage over your current philosophy.

Yes, that's the example I just used. (My children are part of "everyone I love", after all.) The fact that my worldview does not offer the kinds of comfort yours does in such a scenario does not mean your worldview is actually true and mine is not, or even that yours is more likely. The fact that my worldview is cold and random in regards to these kinds of things only means it's cold and random in regards to these kinds of things; it is not evidence that my worldview is not the truth of existence.

FWIW, I agree completely with your last statement - if "my truth" were not true. I don't want a belief because it is pretty or because it comforts me. I want it because it is true. What causes me to seek it in the first place is an explanation of why I should object to death (and so on) in the first place.

And yet, you often say mine fails in the terrible circumstances; as though that proves it is not the actual truth. And yours offers comfort, and even joy, in the terrible circumstances; as though that proves it is the actual truth. I know why, and to what degree under which circumstances, I object to death. Your objection looks to me like the mad (not angry) terror of those who cannot accept what is. I do not share it, and I've never known anyone whose view of it was closer to yours than to mine. As with the moral compass, you are misinterpreting the behavior of others in a way that supports your beliefs.

[aliantha]

To put the shoe on the other foot, can YOU conceive of Orthodox Christianity as true?

Sure I can.

I can conceive of a overarching Truth that encompasses your Truth, and my Truth, and the Truth of everybody else on the Watch, and the Truth of everybody else in the world -- *and* that allows each of us, with our limited understanding, a path to reach Truth.

What I can't conceive of is a Truth that is so limited that it would force every one of us to accept an all-male priesthood, etc., etc., as the *only* way to reach it. My Universe is more forgiving than that.

Then you don't understand what the Church claims, that it has and teaches THE Truth of Jesus Christ and Him crucified, and all claims to the contrary as false.

Did we not go over this recently, with Hecate's blog post? A person can't spend five minutes in this culture without having Jesus rammed down your throat! YES, I understand what your church claims. And YES, I reject it.

I could spend another 20 minutes to an hour writing how I really feel about your God. But today's a sabbat, and still I have a lot to do to get ready.

Happy Beltane, all! May the plans you fertilize today with your intention bear fruit for you.

[rusmeister]

Sure I can.

I can conceive of a overarching Truth that encompasses your Truth, and my Truth, and the Truth of everybody else on the Watch, and the Truth of everybody else in the world -- *and* that allows each of us, with our limited understanding, a path to reach Truth.

What I can't conceive of is a Truth that is so limited that it would force every one of us to accept an all-male priesthood, etc., etc., as the *only* way to reach it. My Universe is more forgiving than that.

Then you don't understand what the Church claims, that it has and teaches THE Truth of Jesus Christ and Him crucified, and all claims to the contrary as false.

Did we not go over this recently, with Hecate's blog post? A person can't spend five minutes in this culture without having Jesus rammed down your throat! YES, I understand what your church claims. And YES, I reject it.

No, you don't.

The fact that you know what Jack Van Impe or Jerry Falwell (which dates me) has to say or whoever the current evangelicals with big followings are today is zero response to what Orthodoxy teaches. Tell me you've really read what Met. Anthony of Sourozh, Alexander Schmemann, John of Kronstadt, etc have to say and that you are tired of it and perceive it as something being rammed down your throat. I totally get that you have a grasp of certain modern versions, much of which I myself would reject. I defend Orthodoxy, not everything going under the name of "Christianity", an anachronistic term when applied to the organization(s) that brought this strange "religion" down through the centuries.

I deny that I am the best or ultimate representative of what the Orthodox Church is and teaches - I'm only the jerk who happens to be here. Even if you've read what I've posted over the past x years here it would be dishonest to reject that thing just because I am too stupid or otherwise unable to competently communicate the essence of it via an electronic forum. It denies everything that is wrong with western Christianity while affirming everything about it that is right. You are tired of hearing what you have never heard.

www.metropolit-anthony.orc.ru/eng/

www.schmemann.org/

If you looked, you would note on Schmemann's site (he died in 1983) that it was put together by Fr Victor Sokolov (who died in 2006), who was instrumental in my own conversion.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Sokolov

Fr Victor's words to me on leaving his office were "Have a wonderful life!"
It's difficult to be irritated at that...

[aliantha]

Five minutes before the laundry's out of the dryer:

Let's be clear about the fact that you're posting those links for *other* Watchers. I have been talking to you here for how many years now? And you have posted, over the years, enough about Orthodoxy that I know I don't agree with it. *You* see differences among the different Christian denominations, and that's great. I'm glad you've found what you need. But *I* see an overarching commonality amongst *all* Christian denominations, portions of which I reject.

So. Feel free to proselytize elsewhere than in your responses to me.

Blessed Beltane to you, rus.